North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area

Assessment of Undiscovered Technically-Recoverable Oil and Gas

As of 2006

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service
Alaska OCS Region
Anchorage, Alaska

Kirk W. Sherwood
John Larson
C. Drew Comer
James D. Craig
Cameron Reitmeier

February 2006

This report is available online at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/reports/rereport.htm. A

Compact Disk version of the report (in PDF format) may be obtained by contacting
Rance Wall, Regional Supervisor for Resource Evaluation, Minerals Management
Service, Centerpoint Financial Center, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, MS 8100,
Anchorage, AK 99503-5823, or at Ph. 907-334-5320, or at e-mail rance.wall@mms.gov
 Table of Contents
List of Text Topics
Summary, page 1
Location and General Geology of North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area,
page 5
Exploration History of North Aleutian
Basin, page 6
Past Exploration Onshore, page 6
Leasing Onshore, page 6
Offshore/OCS Exploration, page 7
Past OCS Leasing, page 7
Productive Analog Basin—Cook Inlet
Basin, page 8
Petroleum Geology of the North Aleutian
Basin, page 9
Regional Geology, page 9
Alaska Peninsula, page 9
Formation of North Aleutian Basin,
page 10
Structures of Amak Basin, Black Hills
Uplift, and North Aleutian Basin,
page 11
Nature of Basement Beneath North
Aleutian Basin, page 13
Mesozoic Stratigraphy and Reservoir
Formations, page 15
Cenozoic Stratigraphy, Reservoir
Formations, and Play Sequences, page
16
Petroleum Systems in North Aleutian
Basin Plays, page 19
Thermal Maturity of North Aleutian
Basin Fill, page 19
Source Rock Potential, page 21
Mesozoic Source Rocks, page 21
Tertiary Source Rocks, page 22
i
Source Potential of Coal-Bearing
Rocks, page 23
Source Potential of “Amorphous”
Interval, 15,620-17,155 ft bkb,
page 24
Source Potential of Tertiary Basin
Fill and Assessment Model, page
26
Oil and Gas Occurrences and
Biomarker Correlations, page 26
Petroleum System—Critical Events,
page 31
Petroleum System Elements and Oil and
Gas Plays in North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area, page 37
Key Elements of Petroleum System,
page 37
Play Definition, page 37
Play Descriptions, North Aleutian Basin,
Alaska, page 38
Play 1: Bear Lake-Stepovak
(Oligocene-Miocene), page 38
Play 2: Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene),
page 39
Play 3: Black Hills Uplift-Amak
Basin (Eocene-Miocene), page 41
Play 4: Milky River Biogenic Gas
(Plio-Pleistocene), page 43
Play 5: Mesozoic Deformed
Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-
Cretaceous), page 45
Play 6: Mesozoic Buried Granitic
Hills (Jurassic-Cretaceous
Magmatic Rocks), page 47
Geologic Assessment Model, page 50
Prospect Areas and Volumes, page 50
Prospect Numbers, page 51
 Pay Thickness Model, page 52
Construction of Probability Distributions
with Limited Data, page 53
Computation of Oil and Gas Recovery
Factors, page 54
Oil Recovery Factor, page 54
Gas Recovery Factor, page 54
Risk Assessment, page 56
Assessment Results for North Aleutian
Basin, page 57
Play 1: Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-
Miocene), page 57
Play 2: Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene),
page 58
Play 3: Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin
(Eocene-Miocene), page 59
List of Tables
1. North Aleutian Basin and Alaska
Peninsula Exploration Wells, 1903-
1985, page 71
2. Selected Extract Data, Oil and Gas Show
Interval, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well, page 72
3. Input Data for Play 1, Bear Lake-
Stepovak (Oligocene- Miocene), page
73
4. Input Data for Play 2, Tolstoi (Eocene-
Oligocene), page 74
5. Input Data for Play 3, Black Hills Uplift-
Amak Basin (Eocene-Miocene), page 75
6. Input Data for Play 4, Milky River
Biogenic Gas (Plio-Pleistocene), page
76
ii
Play 4: Milky River Biogenic Gas (Plio-
Pleistocene), page 59
Play 5: Mesozoic Deformed
Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-
Cretaceous), page 59
Play 6: Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills
(Jurassic-Cretaceous Magmatic
Rocks), page 60
Overall Results for Oil and Gas
Endowments of North Aleutian Basin,
page 61
Large Individual Gas Fields Are
Possible, page 61
Economic Potential of North Aleutian
Basin, page 62
References Cited, page 64
7. Input Data for Play 5, Mesozoic
Deformed Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-
Cretaceous), page 77
8. Input Data for Play 6, Mesozoic Buried
Granitic Hills (Jurassic-Cretaceous
Magmatic Rocks), page 78
9. Input Data for Oil and Gas Recovery
Factor Calculation, Play 1, Bear Lake-
Stepovak (Oligocene- Miocene), page
79
10. Input Data for Oil and Gas Recovery
Factor Calculation, Play 2, Tolstoi
(Eocene-Oligocene), page 80
11. Input Data for Oil and Gas Recovery
Factor Calculation, Play 3, Black Hills
Uplift-Amak Basin (Eocene-Miocene),
page 81
12. Input Data for Oil and Gas Recovery
Factor Calculation, Play 5, Mesozoic
Deformed Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-
Cretaceous), page 82
13. Input Data for Oil and Gas Recovery
Factor Calculation, Play 6, Mesozoic
Buried Granitic Hills (Jurassic-
Cretaceous Magmatic Rocks), page 83
14. 2006 Assessment Results for North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, page 84
15. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Pool Size Simulation Statistics for Play 1
– Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-
Miocene), page 85
16. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 1 – Bear
Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-Miocene),
page 85
17. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Pool Size Simulation Statistics for Play 2
– Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene), page 86
18. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 2 -
Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene), page 86
19. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
List of Figures
1. Location map for North Aleutian basin
and other Tertiary-age basins of the
Bering shelf, Pacific margin, and
southern Chukchi Sea, page 91
2. Regional map for North Aleutian basin,
iii
Pool Size Simulation Statistics for Play 3
– Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin
(Eocene-Miocene), page 87
20. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 3 – Black
Hills Uplift-Amak Basin (Eocene-
Miocene), page 87
21. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Pool Size Simulation Statistics for Play 5
– Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary
Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous), page 88
22. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 5 –
Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary Rocks
(Triassic-Cretaceous), page 88
23. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Pool Size Simulation Statistics for Play 6
– Mesozoic Granitic Buried Hills
(Jurassic-Cretaceous), page 89
24. Conditional (Un-risked) Recoverable
Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 6 –
Mesozoic Granitic Buried Hills
(Jurassic-Cretaceous), page 89
25. 2006 Economic Assessment Results for
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area, page 90
with well control, Sale 92 (1988) leases,
and regional distribution of Tertiary-age
sedimentary rocks, page 92
3. Seismic data coverage (CDP, Two-
Dimensional) for North Aleutian Basin
 OCS Planning Area, page 93
4. Regional distribution of Mesozoic
sedimentary basin containing strata
correlative to Middle Jurassic oil source
rocks that generated 1.4 billion barrels of
oil reserves in the oil fields of northern
Cook Inlet basin, page 94
5. Principal geologic structures of the
North Aleutian basin and contiguous
areas, including: 1) transtensional faults
and basement uplifts in western parts of
the basin; 2) wrench-fault structures
along the Black Hills uplift; and 3)
fold/thrust belts along the southeast
margin of the basin, page 95
6. Seismic profile through basement uplifts
in western North Aleutian basin,
showing Tertiary sedimentary sequences
and basin structures, page 96. An
undistorted Adobe Acrobat version of
figure 6 is available as plate 1
7. Magnetic intensity map with offshore
speculative extrapolation of the Bruin
Bay fault, page 97
8. Mesozoic stratigraphy, Alaska Peninsula
and substrate beneath southwest part of
North Aleutian basin, page 98
9. Wellbore stratigraphy, North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 stratigraphic test well,
page 99. An undistorted Adobe Acrobat
version of figure 9 is available as plate
2.
10. Regional stratigraphic correlation,
Tertiary sequence in North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1, Sandy River 1, Port
Heiden 1, Ugashik 1, and Becharof Lake
1 wells, North Aleutian basin and Alaska
Peninsula, page 100. An undistorted
Adobe Acrobat version of figure 10 is
iv
available as plate 3
11. Statistical summaries for sandstone bed
thicknesses for North Aleutian basin
play sequences, page 101
12. Core porosity versus depth in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with linear
regression function for porosity decline
with depth, page 102
13. Core porosity versus permeability for
sandstones, North Aleutian Shelf COST
1 well, with correlation, page 103
14. Core permeability versus depth for
sandstones, North Aleutian Shelf COST
1 well, with function for permeability
decline with depth, page 104
15. Porosity histograms for Bear Lake-
Stepovak, Upper Tolstoi, and Lower
Tolstoi play sequences, page 105
16. Permeability histograms for Bear Lake-
Stepovak, Upper Tolstoi, and Lower
Tolstoi play sequences, page 106
17. Vitrinite reflectance data for 94 samples
of cuttings, conventional cores, and
percussion sidewall cores in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with
statistical fits and forecasts for depths of
important isograds, page 107
18. Depth to top of oil generation zone
(0.6% vitrinite reflectance) with
probable areas of thermal maturity of
Tertiary rocks sufficient for oil
generation in and beneath the North
Aleutian basin, page 108
19. Isopach map for thickness of Tertiary-
age rocks within oil generation zone
(0.6% to 1.35% vitrinite reflectance)
with probable areas of thermal maturity
 sufficient for oil generation within and
beneath North Aleutian basin, page 109
20. Generation potential (total organic
carbon) and hydrocarbon type (hydrogen
index) indicators for Mesozoic rocks in
the Cathedral River 1 well, page 110
21. Generation potential (total organic
carbon) and hydrocarbon type (hydrogen
index) indicators for Tertiary rocks in
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well,
page 111
22. (A) Modified Van Krevelen plot
comparing Exlog (1983) pyrolysis data
for cuttings with coal partly removed (by
flotation in water) and cuttings with coal
content retained; (B) Sidewall and
conventional core samples, with coal-
bearing and coal-free samples plotted
separately; (C) Van Krevelen-type plot
showing elemental data for sidewall and
conventional core samples, with coal-
bearing and coal-free samples plotted
separately; (D) Van Krevelen-type plot
with elemental analyses for all coal-
bearing samples with HI>150, page 112
23. Analyses of gas compositions from
Alaska Peninsula seeps and oil and gas
fields in northern Cook Inlet basin, page
113
24. (A) Methane carbon isotope data for
Amoco Becharof Lake 1 well. B) Gas
wetness versus methane isotopes, page
114
25. Cross plot for Pristane/n-C17 versus
Phytane/n-C18 ratios for rock extracts
from the oil show interval in nonmarine
Eocene Tolstoi Formation from 15,300
to 16,800 feet bkb in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well, page 115
v
26. Histograms for Pristane/Phytane ratios
of North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
extracts, Tertiary (nonmarine) extracts
and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts
and oils, page 116
27. Sofer cross plot for carbon isotopes for
aromatics and saturates, comparing
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
extracts, Tertiary (nonmarine) extracts
and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts
and oils, page 117
28. A) Triangular plot for saturates versus
aromatics versus non-hydrocarbons,
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
extracts, Tertiary (nonmarine) extracts
and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts
and oils; B) Triangular plot for C27-
C28-C29 sterane ratios, page 118
29. M/Z 191 chromatograms for terpanes by
Baseline DGSI (2003) for extracts from
composited samples from: (A) cores 18
and 19, 16,006-16,720 ft, North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well; and (B) cuttings,
15,700 to 16,800 ft. Both
chromatograms show abundant presence
of C19 to C30 tricyclic terpanes, page
119
30. Burial history plot for North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well, with timelines for
critical petroleum system events, page
120
31. Schematic cross sections illustrating (A)
petroleum system elements and (B) play
concepts for North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area, page 121
32. Map area of play 1, Bear Lake-Stepovak
play, North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area, Alaska, page 122
33. Map area of play 2, Tolstoi play, North
 Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area,
Alaska, page 123
34. Map area of play 3, Black Hills Uplift-
Amak Basin, North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area, Alaska, page 124
35. Map area of play 4, Milky River
Biogenic Gas play, North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area, Alaska, page 125
36. Map area of play 5, Mesozoic Deformed
Sedimentary Rocks play, North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska, page
126
37. Map area of play 6, Mesozoic Buried
Granitic Hills play, North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area, Alaska, page 127
38. Histogram for pay thickness in Tertiary
reservoirs in oil and gas fields of Cook
Inlet, page 128
39. Example of “force-fit” probability
distributions constructed graphically
between estimates for extreme values.
Geothermal models for plays 1, 2 and 3,
in ºRankine (ºF + 460 = ºR), page 129
40. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 1 (Bear
Lake-Stepovak play). (A), cumulative
probability plot for total risked
recoverable BOE resources (barrels of
oil-equivalent); (B), pool class size
histogram, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional
recoverable BOE volumes: page 130
41. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 2
(Tolstoi play). (A), cumulative
probability plot for total risked
recoverable BOE resources (barrels of
oil-equivalent); (B), pool class size
vi
histogram, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional
recoverable BOE volumes: page 131
42. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 3 (Black
Hills Uplift-Amak Basin play). (A),
cumulative probability plot for total
risked recoverable BOE resources
(barrels of oil-equivalent); (B), pool
class size histogram, conditional
recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool
rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes: page 132
43. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 4 (Milky
River Biogenic Gas play)—Play 4 was
not quantified, page 133
44. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 5
(Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary
Rocks play). (A), cumulative
probability plot for total risked
recoverable BOE resources (barrels of
oil-equivalent); (B), pool class size
histogram, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional
recoverable BOE volumes: page 134
45. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area play 6
(Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills play).
(A), cumulative probability plot for total
risked recoverable BOE resources
(barrels of oil-equivalent); (B), pool
class size histogram, conditional
recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool
rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes: page 135
46. Assessment results for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area. (A),
cumulative probability plot for total
risked recoverable BOE resources (oil
 and gas in barrels of oil-equivalent); (B),
cumulative probability plot for total
risked recoverable liquid (oil +
condensate from gas) resources; (C),
cumulative probability plot for total
risked recoverable gas (free gas and
solution gas) resources; (D),
comparative cumulative probability plot
for oil & condensate, BOE, and gas (free
gas and solution gas) resources: page
136
47. Pool rank plot for hypothetical gas pools
in gas-prone plays (1, 2, and 6) of North
Aleutian basin compared to the gas
fields of Cook Inlet basin, page 137
vii
48. Hypothetical development model for
North Aleutian basin gas resources.
Platforms and subsea completions at
offshore gas fields direct the gas into
gathering pipelines that carry the gas to
an offshore hub. A 75-mile pipeline (25
miles subsea, 50 miles overland) then
carries the gas to a hypothetical liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plant at Balboa Bay
(site in southwest arm identified in 1980
study by Dames & Moore). At the LNG
plant the gas is refrigerated to a liquid
state (-260ºF) preparatory to shipping
via LNG tankers to hypothetical
receiving and re-gasification facilities in
Cook Inlet or along the U.S. (or Canada
or Mexico) West Coast. page 138
 List of Plates

(Recommended to be printed tabloid size or larger)

Plate 1. Seismic profile through basement uplifts in western North Aleutian basin,
showing Tertiary sedimentary sequences and basin structures. A page-sized
version of plate 1 is also available as figure 6 (page 96).

Plate 2. Wellbore stratigraphy, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 stratigraphic test well. A
page-sized version of plate 2 is also available as figure 9 (page 99).

Plate 3. Regional stratigraphic correlation, Tertiary sequence in North Aleutian Shelf

COST 1, Sandy River 1, Port Heiden 1, Ugashik 1, and Becharof Lake 1 wells,
North Aleutian basin and Alaska Peninsula. A page-sized version of plate 3 is
available as figure 10 (page 100).

Plate 4. Summary panel of data plots for source rock quality, source type (oil vs. gas),
thermal maturity, and hydrocarbon occurrences in the North Aleutian Shelf COST
1 well (recommended plot size, 34 X 44 inch [ANSI E] or larger).

Appendices-Data Files

Appendix 1. Excel file (xls), porosity and permeability data, sidewall and conventional cores,
Core Laboratories (1983), North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well.

Appendix 2. Excel file (xls), organic geochemical data, cuttings, sidewall cores, and
conventional cores, Exlog (1983) and Robertson Research (1983), North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well.

Appendix 3. Biomarker study, extracts from show interval from 15,700 to 16,800 ft md, North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, composites of core and cuttings material, by
Baseline DGSI for Minerals Management Service (Baseline DGSI, 2003).

Appendix 4. Acrobat file (pdf), Exlog (1983) Pyrolysis Data and Report, North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well.

Appendix 5. Acrobat file (pdf), Robertson Research (1983) Geochemical Data and Report,
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well.

viii
 North Aleutian Basin Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area
Assessment of Undiscovered Technically-Recoverable Oil and Gas
As of 2006

Kirk W. Sherwood
John Larson
C. Drew Comer
James D. Craig
Cameron Reitmeier

February 2006

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service
Alaska OCS Region
Anchorage, Alaska

Summary

The North Aleutian Basin Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Planning Area encompasses an
area of 52,234 square miles and includes
most of the southeastern part of the Bering
Sea continental shelf (fig. 1). The North
Aleutian basin proper is about 17,500 square
miles in area and underlies the northern
coastal plain of the Alaska Peninsula and the
waters of Bristol Bay. North Aleutian basin
is sometimes also referred to as the “Bristol
Bay” basin. Water depths range from 15 to
700 feet and in the area of the most
important prospects the water depths are
approximately 300 feet.
The North Aleutian basin is filled with
approximately 20,000 feet of Tertiary-age
strata. In the southwest corner of the
Planning Area, the Amak basin is separated
by an arch (Black Hills uplift) from the
North Aleutian basin (figs. 2, 3). The Amak
basin is filled with up to 12,500 feet of
Tertiary-age strata. The North Aleutian and
Amak basins, the intervening Black Hills
uplift, and the Mesozoic rocks beneath these
features all contribute resources to the 2006
oil and gas assessment of the North Aleutian
basin.
Most mapped prospects in the North
Aleutian basin proper are simple domes
draped over the crests of fault-bounded
basement uplifts. These domes range up to
133,000 acres in closure area. In the central
part of the North Aleutian basin 65 miles
northwest of Port Moller, these domes are
surrounded by deep parts of the basin where
the lowermost strata are heated to
temperatures sufficient for conversion of
organic matter to oil and gas. Oil and gas
generated in these basin deeps should have
migrated upward into the domes.
The prospects in the central part of the North
Aleutian basin have long been the focus of
exploration interest in North Aleutian basin

1
and several were leased for total high bids of
$95.4 million (23 blocks) in OCS lease sale
92 in 1988. All of the 1988 leases have
been returned to the U.S. Government and
are no longer active. In this assessment, as
well as in past assessments, most of the
hypothetical, undiscovered oil and gas
resources of the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area are associated with the simple
domes draped over basement uplifts in the
central part of the North Aleutian basin.
Onshore, nine exploration wells have tested
fold and thrust-fault structures along the
southern edge of the North Aleutian basin.
Several offshore wells tested age-equivalent
strata in the St. George basin to the west.
The principal point of geological control for
the Tertiary-age fill in the North Aleutian
basin is the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well, drilled in 1983 by an industry
consortium led by ARCO Exploration
Company. None of these wells encountered
any sizeable accumulations of oil or gas,
although several wells detected oil and gas
shows and two onshore wells tested minor
gas pools at rates up to 90 thousands of
cubic feet per day. No wells have tested the
Amak basin. North Aleutian and Amak
basins are covered by gridded (1 to 5 mile
spacing in prospective areas) two-
dimensional seismic data mostly acquired in
the period from 1975 to 1988.
Well and seismic data indicate that thick,
highly porous, and highly permeable
sandstones of Oligocene-Miocene age (Bear
Lake-Stepovak Formations) are present
within the key prospects in the North
Aleutian basin. Geochemical analyses of
well samples indicate that Tertiary strata are
primarily sources for natural gas, possibly
with some condensates. Minor oil shows
were detected within Tertiary rocks in the
lowermost part of the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well. Geochemical studies of
2
extracts of these oil shows indicate
origination within coaly, Tertiary-age rocks
like those sampled by the well. The
southwest part of the North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area is underlain by
Mesozoic rocks that might form a source for
oil. However, the North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area is primarily a gas
province.
The 2006 assessment was completed in
November 2005 and incorporates data and
information available as of 01 January 2003.
The risked, technically-recoverable,
undiscovered hydrocarbon energy
endowment of the North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area ranges up to 6,647
millions of barrels (oil-energy-equivalent, at
F05, the 5% fractile, or 5% probability),
with a mean value or expectation of 2,287
millions of barrels (oil-energy-equivalent).
The Planning Area is gas-prone, with sixty-
seven percent of the undiscovered
hydrocarbon energy endowment consisting
of natural gas. Mean risked, undiscovered
total gas (sum of “non-associated” [free] gas
and solution gas in oil) resources total 8.622
trillions of cubic feet but could range up to a
maximum (F05) potential of 23.278 trillions
of cubic feet. Mean risked, undiscovered
liquid petroleum (sum of free oil and
condensate from gas) resources are
estimated at 753 millions of barrels but
could range up to a maximum (F05)
potential of 2,505 millions of barrels.
 North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, The 2006 MMS economic assessment of the
Undiscovered Technically-Recoverable Oil & Gas
North Aleutian basin models production
Assessment Results as of 2006
infrastructure that originates at offshore
Resource Resources *
Commodity platforms where gas, condensate, and crude
(Units) F95 Mean F05 oil are gathered by subsea pipelines from
BOE (Mmboe) 91 2,287 6,647 several surrounding fields. Subsea pipelines
Total Gas (Tcfg) 0.404 8.622 23.278 carry natural gas and petroleum liquids from
an offshore hub to onshore facilities and a
Total Liquids
19 753 2,505 liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant
(Mmbo)
constructed in Balboa Bay on the south side
Free Gas (Tcfg) 0.401 8.393 22.487
of the Alaska Peninsula (fig. 10). In our
Solution Gas model, natural gas is converted to LNG and
0.003 0.229 0.791
(Tcfg)
then transported by marine LNG carriers to
Oil (Mmbo) 9 545 1,948
new receiving terminals either in the
Condensate
(Mmbc)
10 208 556 northern Cook Inlet (550 mi.) or on the U.S.
* Risked, Technically-Recoverable West Coast (2,600 mi.; fig. 48). Minimum
F95 = 95% chance that resources will equal or exceed the transportation tariffs in the economic model
given quantity
represent a Cook Inlet destination while the
F05 = 5% chance that resources will equal or exceed the given
quantity
maximum tariffs reflect a U.S. West Coast
BOE = total hydrocarbon energy, expressed in barrels-of-oil- landing. The Cook Inlet market (total
equivalent, where 1 barrel of oil = 5,620 cubic feet of batural approximately 200 Bcfg/yr; Sherwood and
gas
Craig, 2001, tbl. 5) is probably too small to
Mmb = millions of barrels
accept the entire North Aleutian production
Tcf = trillions of cubic feet
stream (approximately 150 Bcfg/yr) but
nonetheless offers an alternative market.

The lowest (or “threshold”) prices that yield

The 2006 assessment of the North Aleutian
positive economic volumes in the North
Basin OCS Planning Area identified six
Aleutian basin are $14/barrel of oil and
exploration plays. Most (61%) of the
$3.63/Mcf of non-associated gas. (Solution
hypothetical, undiscovered oil and gas
gas is linked to oil development and first
resources are associated with play 1—
becomes “economic” at $2.12/Mcf or the
termed the Bear Lake-Stepovak play. Play 1
threshold price for oil [$14/barrel].)
captures most of the key prospects in the
However, higher prices are required to
central part of the North Aleutian basin.
economically recover meaningful fractions
The mean conditional (un-risked) size of the
of the oil and gas endowment. Significant
largest pool in play 1 (and the North
quantities (>300 Mmbo) of oil become
Aleutian basin overall) is 4.65 trillions of
economic to recover at prices approaching
cubic feet of natural gas (or 827 millions of
$30/bbl. This could represent a standalone
barrels [oil-energy-equivalent]), nearly twice
offshore oil field. Significant quantities (>1
the size of the largest gas field in Cook Inlet
Tcfg) of gas become economic at prices
(Kenai gas field, 2.427 Tcfg EUR). At
exceeding $4.54/Mcf. However, a
maximum (F05) size, the largest pool in play
minimum total gas reserve of 5 Tcfg would
1 could contain 14.02 trillions of cubic feet
probably be required to justify a grassroots
of natural gas (or 2.495 billions of barrels
LNG export operation. This economic
[oil-energy-equivalent]).
volume is recoverable at an approximate gas

3
price of $6.50/Mcfg and represents 58 Iliamna Lake may form a potential future
percent of the total recoverable gas market for North Aleutian basin gas
endowment (8.622 Tcfg). resources. However, the Pebble project site
is located approximately 400 miles
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Undiscovered northwest of the key prospects in the central
Economically-Recoverable Oil & Gas
Assessment Results as of 2006
part of the North Aleutian basin and the
Price Resources *
estimated gas demand may be too small to
Resource
($2005) Per
Commodity (Units)
support a pipeline of this length.
Unit F95 Mean F05
Threshold Prices ($2005, Mean Resource Case) for Positive
Economic Results = $14/Barrel of Oil and $3.63/Mcf of Non- In October 1989, the North Aleutian basin
Associated Gas was placed under a Congressional
Oil & Condensate moratorium which banned U.S. Department
$18/bbl 0 45 200
(Mmbo)
of Interior expenditures in support of any
$2.72/Mcf Solution Gas (Tcfg) 0.000 0.017 0.053
petroleum leasing or development activities
Oil & Condensate
$30/bbl
(Mmbo)
2 378 1,371 in North Aleutian Basin as well as the
Free Gas & Solution
Atlantic, Pacific, and eastern Gulf of Mexico
$4.54/Mcf 0.001 0.909 2.780
Gas (Tcfg) OCS Planning Areas. Bristol Bay is the
Oil & Condensate center of a very important commercial
$46/bbl 11 631 2,180
(Mmbo) salmon fishery. The North Aleutian
Free Gas & Solution moratorium reacted to widespread demands
$6.96/Mcf 0.132 5.852 16.548
Gas (Tcfg) for fisheries protection in Bristol Bay by
$80/bbl
Oil & Condensate
19 738 2,468 Native organizations, Native villages, local
(Mmbo)
fishing interests, and the State of Alaska
Free Gas & Solution
$12.10/Mcf
Gas (Tcfg)
0.392 8.396 22.767 following the March 1989 Exxon Valdez
grounding and oil spill in Prince William
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS: 2005 base year; oil price is indexed
to Alaska North Slope crude landed on the U.S. West Coast; gas Sound, Alaska. This moratorium was
price is LNG landed on the U.S. West Coast; 0.8488 BOE-basis extended by Congress several times during
gas value discount relative to oil; flat real prices and costs; 3%
inflation; 12% discount rate; 35% Federal tax. the 1990’s. Offshore leases that had been
issued in the 1988 OCS Sale 92 in the North
* Risked, Economically-Recoverable
F95 = 95% chance that resources will equal or exceed the given
Aleutian basin were returned to the Federal
quantity government in a 1995 buy-back agreement.
F05 = 5% chance that resources will equal or exceed the given On 12 June 1998, President William Clinton
quantity
Mmb = millions of barrels issued an Executive Order reinforcing the
Tcf = trillions of cubic feet moratorium, as a Presidential Withdrawal,
on North Aleutian Basin as well as the
Current prices exceed $6.50/Mcf by a wide Atlantic, Pacific, and eastern Gulf of Mexico
margin (recent gas prices at the Los Angeles continental shelves until 30 June 2012. The
city gate have exceeded $13.00/Mcf; Natural Presidential Withdrawal still stands but can
Gas Week, 19 December 2005). If the be revoked by the President. In the FY-
current high prices are sustained, a 2004 Congressional bill appropriating the
significant fraction of North Aleutian basin budget for the U.S. Department of Interior,
gas resources are economically attractive. the language forbidding funding of oil and
gas activities (i.e., the “Congressional
Locally, the proposed “Pebble” gold mine moratorium”) in the North Aleutian Basin
(estimated gas demand of 66 Mmcfg/day to OCS Planning Area was dropped. The
feed a 200 Mw power plant) north of moratoria language in the bill was retained

4
for the other moratoria areas listed above.
This action effectively ended the
Congressional moratorium on oil and gas
Location and General Geology of North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
The North Aleutian basin, located in figure
1, is one of several basins of primarily
Tertiary age that dot the Bering Sea shelf.
The Bering Sea shelf is relatively flat and
featureless except near the modern shoreline
where Pleistocene glacial and relict
shoreline features occur. The outer shelf
and slope are incised by large submarine
canyons near the shelf edge west of the St.
George and Navarin basins. These
submarine canyons empty westward into the
deep abyssal plains of the western Bering
Sea.
The North Aleutian basin underlies the
waters of Bristol Bay north of the Alaska
Peninsula (located in fig. 1) and is
sometimes also termed the “Bristol Bay”
basin. The basin underlies the southern part
of the North Aleutian Basin Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Planning Area.
The basin is roughly 100 miles wide and 400
miles in length and reaches depths of 20,000
feet in its deepest parts. The North Aleutian
basin extends onshore beneath the lowlands
5
activities in the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area.
along the north shore of the Alaska
Peninsula, where it has been penetrated by
several wells. At its west end, a series of
arches isolate the basin from the similar St.
George and Amak basins, where Tertiary
sediment thicknesses reach 40,000 feet and
12,500 feet, respectively (Comer et al.,
1987). Along the southern margin of the
North Aleutian basin, the Tertiary basin fill
is deformed in fold and thrust-fault
structures like those widely exposed on the
Alaska Peninsula. The interior of the North
Aleutian basin is dominated by uplifted fault
blocks that have domed the overlying strata.
Prospects associated with these dome
structures are the primary exploration
objectives in the North Aleutian basin.
Although minor quantities of gas were
recovered by flow tests at an onshore well,
no significant accumulations of
hydrocarbons have been located by
exploration in the North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area or on the Alaska
Peninsula.
 Exploration History of North Aleutian Basin
Past Exploration Onshore
Beginning with the first wells drilled in
1903, a total of 27 wells were drilled
onshore on the Alaska Peninsula to the
southeast of the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area (table 1; fig. 2). All the 10
earliest wells (1903-1940) were drilled in
the vicinity of local oil seeps. The last 17
wells, completed since 1959, were located
based primarily on considerations of
geologic structure and stratigraphy. The
wells are spread over a distance of
approximately 260 miles along the Alaska
Peninsula, extending from the Pacific,
Costello, and Great Basins wells in the
northeast to the Cathedral River 1 well to the
southwest (fig. 2). Although these wells are
mostly located at moderate distances from
the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area, they are important for making
correlations and inferences about the
hydrocarbon potential of the stratigraphic
section offshore.
None of the onshore wells encountered
producible oil and gas; however, at least 6 of
the wells completed since 1959 have
encountered minor shows of oil and/or gas.
A seventh, the Amoco Becharof Lake 1,
tested gas in measurable but non-
commercial amounts.
Leasing Onshore
On 26 October 2005, the State of Alaska
received 37 bids on 37 tracts in the Port
Moller area (fig. 2). High bids totaled $1.27
million and all bids were submitted by either
Shell Offshore Inc. (33 tracts, $0.95 million)
or Hewitt Mineral Corp. (4 tracts, $0.31
6
million). The tracts cover areas where thrust
faulted and folded Mesozoic and Cenozoic
rocks are exposed at the surface (Wilson et
al., 1995). The new State of Alaska leases
presumably offer exploration objectives in
fold structures that are unlike the simple
domes that form the key prospects in the
Federal offshore.
In 2003, the State of Alaska proposed a
sealed-bid licensing program focusing on
shallow gas resources north of their
proposed lease area, as outlined (2003 area)
in figure 2. Based upon industry interest,
the licensing program area was later
contracted to the 2004 area of 329,000 acres
also shown in figure 2. A license was to be
awarded (supplemental notice of 22
December 2004, AKDO&G, 2004) to
Bristol Shores LLC. However, financing
efforts to bond the exploration commitment
failed (P. Galvin, pers. comm., 2005) and
the license lapsed. Bristol Shores LLC has
submitted a new license application for a
reduced area of 20,154 acres (Bailey, 2005).
The proposed Northern Dynasty “Pebble”
gold mine north of Iliamna Lake (located in
fig. 2) forms a potential new market for
North Aleutian basin gas resources and may
drive interest in future lease sales on State of
Alaska lands in the region. In the Federal
offshore, the best prospects lie
approximately 400 pipeline miles southwest
of the proposed Pebble mine. Northern
Dynasty representatives have indicated that
the Pebble project will require a 200
megawatt (Mw) power supply (Ede, 2005).
This translates to a potential gas demand of
about 66 Mmcf/day 1 and may be too small
to support a 400 mile pipeline.
Offshore/OCS Exploration
Only one well has been drilled offshore in
the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area. This was a “Continental Offshore
Stratigraphic Test” (COST) well, the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (tbl.1; fig. 2).
Eighteen companies participated in
financing the well, with ARCO Exploration
Company as the operator. It was drilled
from the SEDCO 708, a self-propelled semi-
submersible drilling rig, and was spudded
(began drilling) on September 8, 1982, in
285 feet of water. The well was plugged
and abandoned on January 14, 1983, after
bottoming at 17,155 feet in sedimentary
rock of Eocene age. Below 15,300 feet,
minor gas peaks appeared on the mud log
and drill cuttings showed some oil stain and
fluorescence (Turner et al., 1988), but no
pools of oil or gas were encountered.
Seismic data coverage for the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area is shown
in figure 3. Seismic data gathered to date
within the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area consists of 64,672 combined
line miles of conventional, two-dimensional,
common-depth-point (CDP) and shallow-
penetrating, high-resolution (HRD) data. Of
the seismic data held by MMS, 95% is CDP
and 5% is HRD. Airborne magnetic data in
1
Estimated as follows: One Mw capacity matches
one Mw·h (megawatt-hour) demand. Assume 3,412
btu/kwh energy equivalence (AEO, 2001, tbl. H1, p.
248) and 1,000 btu/cf gas; substitutions obtain 3,412
cf/Mw·h. At 25% efficiency* and 200Mw·h demand,
we obtain 2.73 Mmcfg/h or 65.51 Mmcfg/day in gas
demand.
* AEO (2001, tbls. 19 & 20, p. 103) reports a 1984-
1999 range in efficiencies of delivered electricity of
15% to 38% for various sectors.
7
the area covers 9,596 line miles.
Approximately 6,400 miles of airborne
gravity data have also been gathered in the
Planning Area.
Past OCS Leasing
The only OCS lease sale in the area, the
North Aleutian Shelf Sale 92, was held in
October of 1988, with a total offering of 990
lease blocks (area of offering shown in fig.
2). The bidding resulted in the awarding of
23 leases (blocks shown in fig. 2) covering
121,757 acres. Proceeds from the sale
totaled $95,439,500.
Following the March 1989 grounding of the
Exxon Valdez tanker and subsequent oil
spill, a drilling ban was instituted in the
North Aleutian basin Federal offshore in
1989. The drilling ban and moratorium on
all exploration recognized widespread
opposition from Native organizations and
villages and concerns about impacts on the
lucrative salmon fishery. As a result, none
of the 23 leases in the area were ever drilled.
In 1992, 11 oil companies filed a joint
lawsuit (Conoco Inc. vs. USA) in an attempt
to end the ban or receive compensation. An
out of court settlement and a Federal
buyback of the leases was reached in 1995.
On 12 June 1998, President William Clinton
issued an Executive Order extending the
moratorium (as a Presidential Withdrawal)
on North Aleutian basin (and the Atlantic,
Pacific, and eastern Gulf of Mexico
continental shelves) until 30 June 2012
(Alaska Report, 1998). The Presidential
Withdrawal still stands but can be revoked
by the President. However, the
Congressional moratorium on petroleum-
related activities in North Aleutian basin has
been lifted. In the FY-2004 Congressional
bill appropriating budget funding for the
U.S. Department of Interior, the language
forbidding funding of oil and gas activities
(i.e., the “moratorium”) in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area was
Productive Analog Basin—Cook Inlet Basin
In southern Alaska, the most successful
basin from the standpoint of oil and gas is
the northern part of Cook Inlet basin, located
in figure 4. The first field was discovered in
1957, and exploration programs continuing
into the early 1970’s located original
recoverable reserves of 1.4 billions of
barrels of oil and 11.6 trillions of cubic feet
of gas (AKDO&G, 2004). Most of these
reserves have been depleted, with remaining
reserves as of late 2003 estimated at 0.0751
billions of barrels of oil (5% of original
reserves) and 2.039 trillions of cubic feet of
gas (18% of original reserves) (AKDO&G,
2004, tbls. 3.2, IV.2, IV.6).
Like the North Aleutian basin, the principal
fill of the Cook Inlet basin is of Tertiary age
and reaches maximum thicknesses of
roughly 26,000 feet (Hite, 1976; Fisher and
Magoon, 1982, fig. 4). The most prolific
Cook Inlet basin petroleum reservoirs are of
Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene ages.
Age-equivalent strata in the North Aleutian
basin are also the best candidates for
petroleum reservoirs.
The structural style of prospects differs
between the North Aleutian and Cook Inlet
basins. Oil and gas fields in Cook Inlet
occupy transpressional anticlines of
Oligocene to Pliocene age that formed near
strike-slip faults that pass from northeast to
southwest through the basin (Haeussler et
al., 2000). In contrast, North Aleutian basin
8
dropped (but retained for other moratoria
areas).
prospects are drape anticlines developed in
Eocene through Pliocene time over
basement uplifts that were elevated while
sediments in flanking deeps compacted,
thereby doming shallow strata over the
basement uplifts.
One of the more compelling points of
analogy between the Cook Inlet and North
Aleutian basins is the potential role of
underlying Mesozoic rocks in the generation
of oil and charging of prospects in overlying
Tertiary strata. Both basins overlie an older
Mesozoic basin that contains the oil source
rocks that generated the oil fields of
northern Cook Inlet basin. The petroleum
system in northern Cook Inlet succeeded
because a deep Tertiary basin was
superposed on a thermally immature
Mesozoic assemblage that was buried and
heated to temperatures appropriate for oil
generation at the same time that fold traps
grew in the overlying Tertiary basin fill
(Magoon, 1994). The Middle Jurassic
Tuxedni Group was the source for the oil
that migrated upward into the Tertiary basin
fill, generally charging fold structures in the
Oligocene Hemlock Conglomerate
(Magoon, 1994). The “Tuxedni-Hemlock”
petroleum system that created the prolific oil
fields of northern Cook Inlet basin is
featured as a case study by Magoon (1994).
Critical to the success of the “Tuxedni-
Hemlock” petroleum system are the facts
that the Mesozoic assemblage beneath
northern Cook Inlet basin was both: 1)
compositionally appropriate (endowed with
rocks rich in organic matter and able to
generate oil); and 2) thermally immature
(retained ability to generate oil through 100
million years following deposition and not
deeply buried until about 65 Ma [Magoon,
1994, fig. 22.7]). Correlative potential oil
source rocks with a similar burial history
may be found in the Mesozoic basin in areas
beyond northern Cook Inlet.
The Mesozoic rocks beneath Cook Inlet
basin were deposited in a Mesozoic (Jurassic
to Cretaceous) basin that was coupled to a
Jurassic to Cretaceous volcanic arc to the
north (Bally and Snelson, 1980). This
Mesozoic basin extends at least 600 miles
from interior Alaska to the southwest
through the Alaska Peninsula (Imlay and
Detterman, 1973, p. 8-9). From the Alaska
Peninsula the Mesozoic basin probably
extends an additional 300 miles
northwesterly beneath St. George basin
(Worrall, 1991, fig. 15). The approximate
area of this Mesozoic basin is highlighted in
figure 4 as the “Mesozoic basin with
Jurassic oil source rocks?” The Cook Inlet
basin, the North Aleutian basin, and the St.
George basin are all superposed on the
Petroleum Geology of the North Aleutian Basin
Regional Geology
Alaska Peninsula
The Alaska Peninsula is the site of tectonic-
plate convergence between the Pacific
oceanic plate and the North American
9
Mesozoic basin. Magoon (1994) has shown
that this superposition was critical to the
creation of the oil accumulations of the
northern Cook Inlet basin. On the other
hand, St. George basin was tested by 12
wells, none of which encountered any oil or
gas accumulations. It seems that the
Mesozoic strata beneath St. George basin
were somehow incapable of generating oil
into the overlying St. George basin fill.
Perhaps early deep burial caused generation
and expulsion of petroleum from the
Mesozoic rocks prior to formation of the
Tertiary-age St. George basin. Perhaps the
Mesozoic rocks beneath St. George basin
simply lack the appropriate organic matter
for oil generation.
To the northeast of the North Aleutian basin
we have a successful analog (northern Cook
Inlet basin) and to the southwest of North
Aleutian basin we have a failure analog (St
George basin). The existence of substantive
oil sources in the part of the Mesozoic basin
that lies beneath North Aleutian basin
remains unproven. However, this
assessment assumes some capability
(appropriately risked, given the uncertainty)
of Mesozoic oil source rocks for providing
oil to traps within both Mesozoic and
contiguous Cenozoic rocks.
continental margin. The resulting magmatic
arc is a continuation of the Aleutian islands
volcanic arc to the west, where convergence
involves two oceanic plates. Plate
convergence has been occurring at this
margin episodically since the Early Jurassic.
As a result, the peninsula is geologically
complex and includes both Mesozoic and
Cenozoic igneous and sedimentary rocks.
The modern Alaska Peninsula volcanic arc
is built upon earlier volcano-plutonic arcs.
Intrusive plutons from both Jurassic and
Tertiary magmatic events occur in many
places on the Alaska Peninsula. The oldest
sedimentary rocks on the Alaska Peninsula
are Late Triassic carbonates at Puale Bay to
the east (located in fig. 2) along Shelikof
Strait, but most of the Mesozoic strata
consist of arc-derived clastic rocks of
Jurassic and Cretaceous age. Those rocks
are mostly of marine origin and are
extensively folded and thrust faulted. The
Tertiary section includes interbedded
volcanic and volcaniclastic sedimentary
rocks of continental origin. The Tertiary
strata are less deformed than the Mesozoic
strata. Both the Mesozoic and Cenozoic
rock units of the Alaska Peninsula extend
under the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area.
Formation of North Aleutian Basin
The North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area contains two main depocenters: the
North Aleutian basin and the Amak basin.
Those two sedimentary depressions are
separated by the Black Hills uplift, which
extends westward under the Bering Sea shelf
from the Alaska Peninsula. The North
Aleutian basin is primarily a Tertiary-age
basin that was filled with sediments derived
from uplifted areas in the Alaska Peninsula
to the south and the western Alaska Range
(located in fig. 1) to the northeast. The
North Aleutian basin contains as much as
20,000 feet of Cenozoic strata. The basin is
less than 3,000 ft thick on the northwest and
thickens southeastward to about 20,000
near the Alaska Peninsula. This asymmetric
profile has the appearance of a foredeep,
possibly caused by tectonically thickened
10
crust under the volcanic arc of the Alaska
Peninsula (Bond et al., 1988).
The North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well did
not penetrate “basement” but reached total
depth in Lower Eocene rocks of the lower
part of the Tolstoi Formation (Detterman,
1990; Turner et al., 1988). The oldest
known strata within the basin fill are Late
Paleocene rocks of the Tolstoi Formation
exposed on the Alaska Peninsula (Detterman
et al., 1996). Detterman et al. (1996, p. 42)
note that in most parts of the Alaska
Peninsula, the base of the Tolstoi Formation
is a prominent Paleocene unconformity that
places the Tolstoi on a variety of older
Mesozoic formations. Wilson et al. (1995)
and Detterman et al. (1996) indicate that in
the vicinity of the Black Hills uplift and east
to Port Moller, the Tolstoi Formation and
underlying Cretaceous Hoodoo Formation
(or equivalent Chignik Fm.) are concordant
across a disconformity. Offshore on the
Black Hill uplift, we observe structural
discordance between Tolstoi strata and
underlying Mesozoic rocks in seismic data.
From regional geological data and seismic
interpretation, Worrall (1991) infers a late
Eocene age for the unconformity (his “red”
seismic horizon; approximately our seismic
horizon “D” at 10,380 ft bkb [below Kelly
bushing, or measured depth] in the COST
well) flooring North Aleutian basin proper.
The angular unconformity separating the
two sequences was formed when plate
reorganization in the north Pacific resulted
in a change from convergent to strike-slip
movement along the continental margin
(Marlow and Cooper, 1980; Lonsdale, 1988;
Worrall, 1991). Worrall (1991, fig. 38)
assigns all of the Eocene rocks below 10,660
ft bkb in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well to an older (his “carapace” sequence)
group of Campanian to Eocene rocks that
was deposited and folded prior to the late
Eocene or “red” unconformity. However, it
is our view that Worrall’s “carapace
sequence” in the North Aleutian basin
instead represents the earliest basin fill
deposited in faulted grabens during the
initial rift phase of basin subsidence. Rather
than the roots of fold synclines (Worrall
model), we view these bodies of rock as fill
within grabens established at the onset of
transtensional rifting, most likely in
Paleocene time. The Upper Eocene
unconformity (“red” horizon of Worrall; our
seismic horizon “D”) marks the transition
from a rift phase (accompanied by faulting)
to a foredeep phase with southward tilting
governed by thrust loading on the south
(Bond et al., 1988).
The North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
reached total depth at 17,155 ft bkb in
Lower Eocene rocks of the Tolstoi
Formation, but seismic data suggest an
additional 2,000 to 3,000 feet of stratified
rocks below the base of the well. Because
of the widespread Paleocene unconformity
at the base of the Tolstoi Formation on the
Alaska Peninsula, we infer that the oldest
deposits in the North Aleutian basin, dating
the onset of rift faulting and basin
subsidence, are Paleocene in age.
Structures of Amak Basin, Black Hills
Uplift, and North Aleutian Basin
The principal structures of the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area and
contiguous areas are mapped in figure 5.
The context for these structures is
compressive deformation on the south and a
diffuse zone of strike-slip deformation and
extension that passes through the Alaska
Peninsula, the western part of the North
Aleutian basin, and along the flanks of the
Black Hills uplift. All structures are
ultimately rooted in the interactions between
11
the Alaska Peninsula volcanic arc and the
Aleutian trench and subduction zone.
The Amak basin is a relatively small
structural depression south of the Black
Hills uplift on the outer Bering Sea shelf.
This basin contains as much as 12,500 feet
of Cenozoic strata overlying folded and
faulted Mesozoic sedimentary rocks. The
Cenozoic strata within the Amak basin are
less deformed than in the North Aleutian
basin. Wrench faults and normal faults
commonly cut the basement and lower
Tertiary horizons, but the horst and graben
structural style characteristic of the North
Aleutian basin is absent in the Amak basin.
The Black Hills uplift is the dominant
positive structural feature of the southwest
part of the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area. This uplift plunges
westward from the Alaska Peninsula
through the southern Bering Sea shelf and
continues into the St. George Basin Planning
Area. The Black Hills uplift is probably a
transpressional feature formed by strike-slip
motion along the Bering Sea margin. The
Naknek Formation (Late Jurassic) is
exposed at the crest of the Black Hills uplift
onshore. The Naknek Formation and older
(as old as Late Triassic) formations probably
form the core of the Black Hills uplift. The
crest of the uplift is draped by Upper Eocene
through Miocene strata. The uplift is fault-
bounded on both the North Aleutian basin
side (to the north) and the Amak basin side
(to the south). Wrench fault zones pass
along the north and south flanks of the Black
Hills uplift, as illustrated in a seismic profile
published by Worrall (1991, pl. 2G). The
wrench fault zones are 10 to 15 miles wide,
extend through Plio-Pleistocene strata to the
seafloor, and are associated with both
transpressional (or “positive”) and
transtensional (or “negative”) flower
structures. Normal (probably transtensional)
faults are observed between the wrench
zones across the crest of the Black Hills
uplift. The sense of displacement on the
wrench faults is believed to be right-lateral
on the basis of context and regional
structural patterns (Worrall, 1991).
We recognize two general structural
domains in the North Aleutian basin: 1)
transtensional grabens and horsts in the
basin interior; and 2) fold and thrust-fault
structures along the south margin. From a
petroleum exploration standpoint the
transtensional horsts in the basin interior and
overlying drape structures form the most
attractive prospects in the basin.
In the southwest half of the North Aleutian
basin, transtensional faults bound horsts
with several thousands of feet of structural
relief at the basement level. Tertiary strata
younger than Late Eocene are domed
upward over these horsts, partly because of
fault movements and partly because of
compaction subsidence within sediment-
filled grabens flanking the horsts. Some
examples of these drape anticlines are
illustrated in the seismic line of figure 6 (full
scale image available as plate 1). Drape
anticlines over basement uplifts extend from
the Upper Eocene unconformity (seismic
horizon “D”--truncates the crests of
basement uplifts) at about 10,000 ft ssd
(subsea depth) upward to a Lower Pliocene
unconformity (seismic horizon “A”) at about
2,500 ft ssd. Displacements on uplift-
bounding faults abruptly diminish above the
Upper Eocene unconformity, but very small
(possibly compaction-driven) offsets are
observed up to about 5,000 feet in figure 6
(and pl. 1). These drape anticlines are the
primary exploration targets in the North
Aleutian basin. Because of their large
closure areas and involvement of the thick,
porous Bear Lake-Stepovak reservoir
sandstones, these drape anticlines host most
12
of the undiscovered, hypothetical oil and gas
potential of the North Aleutian basin.
The overall structure of North Aleutian
basin is illustrated by structural contours on
an Upper Oligocene datum in figure 5. The
basin is basically a southward-thickening
wedge that is abruptly terminated in a series
of fold and thrust-fault structures that are the
northern limit of the compressional
deformations that dominate the Alaska
Peninsula. The Alaska Peninsula is a fold
and thrust belt that grades from simple, open
structures on the northeast to highly
shortened and complex structures in the
southwest (Burk, 1965, figs. 21, 22). In its
overall shape, the North Aleutian basin
resembles a foredeep, in which the south
flank has been depressed by thrust loading
and in which shallow thrust structures
abruptly terminate in a system of duplexes
and triangle zones. This view is supported
by modeling studies of the deep structure of
the North Aleutian basin and the Alaska
Peninsula volcanic arc by Bond et al. (1988)
and Walker et al. (2003). The Bond study
concluded that basin subsidence was driven
by downward flexure of the back-arc
lithosphere beneath a load imposed by
subduction-driven crustal thickening of the
arc and forearc of the Alaska Peninsula.
The Walker study concluded that early
extension and fault-controlled subsidence
was succeeded by flexural subsidence due to
loading on the south by stacking of volcanic
materials on the Alaska Peninsula.
The southeast margin of the North Aleutian
basin is deformed by folds, thrust faults, and
antiformal duplexes that represent the
northern front of the Alaska Peninsula fold
and thrust belt. Proprietary seismic data
indicate that the fold and thrust-fault
structures along the southwest margin of the
basin terminate northward in triangle zones
that have tilted rocks as young as Pliocene
over duplex roofs. The David River 1/1A,
Hoodoo Lake 1, Hoodoo Lake 2, and Sandy
River 1 wells were all drilled into antiformal
duplexes that back triangle zones that taper
northward beneath north-dipping Miocene to
Pliocene basin fill. We speculate (as shown
in fig. 5) that similar structures extend along
strike to the northeast and form the targets
drilled at the Port Heiden 1, Ugashik 1,
Great Basins 1, Great Basins 2, and
Becharof Lake 1 wells. However, we do not
have access to any seismic data through
these latter wells. Southwest of the Sandy
River 1 well, proprietary seismic data
indicate that the fold, thrust-fault, and
duplex structures do not extend offshore into
Federal waters. Therefore, these fold and
thrust-fault structures do not form an oil and
gas play in our assessment of the North
Aleutian basin.
Nature of Basement Beneath North
Aleutian Basin
In the western Alaska Range, the Bruin Bay
fault forms a regional contact between
Mesozoic volcano-plutonic rocks on the
north and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks on
the south (Magoon et al., 1976). The
volcano-plutonic rocks on the north are the
roots of a Mesozoic volcanic arc and range
in K-Ar ages from 179 to 107 Ma (Magoon
et al., 1976, sh. 3), or Middle Jurassic to
mid-Cretaceous, respectively, in equivalent
stratigraphic ages. The Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks south of the Bruin Bay
fault represent a Mesozoic basin that flanked
the contemporary volcanic arc to the north
(Bally and Snelson, 1980).
The Bruin Bay fault system is a series of
high-angle reverse faults with the upthrown
side on the northwest (Detterman and Reed,
1980). The Bruin Bay fault is truncated
north of Cook Inlet by the presently-active
13
Castle Mountain fault. To the southwest,
the fault system is mapped at the surface
through the Alaska Peninsula to Becharof
Lake, where the fault trace passes southwest
beneath Quaternary volcanic and glacial
deposits (Detterman et al., 1987). Fault
movement was primarily in Middle and Late
Jurassic time, when the Alaska-Aleutian
Range batholith was being unroofed,
providing clastic detritus to the Late Jurassic
Naknek and younger formations. The Bruin
Bay fault is intruded by a plutonic stock on
the Alaska Peninsula that was age-dated at
25.0-26.7 Ma, indicating no movement since
the Oligocene in that area (Reed and
Lanphere, 1972; Magoon et al., 1976, sheets
2, 3, sites 66 & 67; Detterman and Reed,
1980). To the north, the subsurface trace
extends very close to the complexly-folded
and reverse-faulted structures of the Middle
Ground Shoal, McArthur River, Beluga
River and other oil and gas fields of upper
Cook Inlet (Boss et al., 1976). According to
Haeussler et al. (2000), those fault-cored
folds are Miocene and younger, with most of
the deformation occurring in the
Quaternary.
Penetrations of Mesozoic granitic rocks
beneath the North Aleutian basin fill north
of the Bruin Bay fault occurred at the Great
Basins 1, Great Basins 2, Becharof Lake 1,
and Port Heiden 1 wells. Penetrations of
Mesozoic sedimentary rocks south of the
Bruin Bay fault occurred at the Cathedral
River 1, David River 1/1A, and Hoodoo
Lake 2 wells. Five wells in the St. George
basin to the west encountered Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks beneath Tertiary basin
fill. The North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
did not reach any pre-Tertiary rocks. These
well penetrations of the Mesozoic substrate
are sparse and only provide fragmentary
information about the subsurface
distribution of the component terranes.
Southwest of Becharof Lake, as noted
above, the Bruin Bay fault passes beneath
volcanic rocks and glacial sediments of
Quaternary age of the Bristol Bay lowlands.
The lowlands are dotted with numerous
semi-circular magnetic anomalies that Case
et al. (1988) interpret to locate buried
granitoid to gabbroic plutons of Jurassic to
Tertiary ages. None of these buried igneous
bodies have been sampled or dated and
speculations about their ages are based on
regional context. A narrow, north-northeast-
trending belt of high magnetic intensity
(anomaly 8C of Case et al.) south of
Becharof Lake is interpreted to locate a
buried anticlinal limb of Naknek Formation
(Jurassic) (Case et al., 1988, fig. 4, p. 4).
This “Naknek” anomaly is truncated on the
north at a projected buried strand of the
Bruin Bay fault 15 miles southwest of
Becharof Lake (Case et al., 1988, sheet 2). 2
Farther southwest, the location of any
extension of the Bruin Bay fault is unknown
and a matter for speculation.
A regional magnetic intensity map for the
southern Bering Sea shelf published by
Childs et al. (1981) is reproduced with
annotations in figure 7. The map shows two
principal magnetic domains with very
different field characters. In the north, the
map shows high-frequency, high-intensity
magnetic anomalies. In the south, the map
shows low-frequency, low-intensity
magnetic anomalies. The two magnetic
domains are clearly separated by a sharp,
2
Similar relationships are shown on geologic maps
(Magoon et al., 1976, sheet 2) to the east near
Kamishak Bay. In the latter area, the exposed
Naknek Formation is confined to the block southeast
of the Bruin Bay fault, which also truncates the axes
of large folds within the Naknek (Magoon et al.,
1976, sheet 2). Naknek folds and the Bruin Bay fault
are both truncated by a 25.0-26.7 Ma (Oligocene)
granodiorite/quartz diorite stock (Magoon et al.,
1976, sheets 2, 3, sites 66 & 67), which sets the
minimum age for the deformation.
14
west-trending line that may represent the
extension of the Bruin Bay fault into the
southern Bering Sea.
We speculate that the northern magnetic
domain in figure 7 is the southwestward,
offshore extension of the Mesozoic
magmatic arc terrane exposed north of the
Bruin Bay fault in the western Alaska
Range. In support of this notion we observe
that magnetic data over the exposed
magmatic arc terrane north of the Bruin Bay
fault (in a regional compilation published by
Godson, 1994) show a high-frequency, high-
intensity field character much like that of the
northern magnetic domain illustrated in
figure 7. Along the Alaska Peninsula
proper, there are numerous magnetic
anomalies related to Tertiary-age intrusives
and modern volcanoes. West of 162º WL,
the projected extension of the Bruin Bay
fault diverges northwest away from the
Tertiary arc and the contrast in magnetic
domains north and south of the Bruin Bay
fault is more clear (fig. 7).
In marine seismic data over the Black Hills
uplift, we observe coherent, folded
reflections that extend up to 2 sec below a
prominent angular unconformity at the base
of Tertiary rocks. These coherent, folded
reflections are interpreted to correspond to
Mesozoic strata that are exposed onshore to
the east along the crest of the Black Hills
uplift (fig. 5; Wilson et al., 1995). Some
examples of these coherent, folded
reflections are observed within the
“Peninsular terrane” in a seismic panel
published by Worrall (1991, pl. 2, line “G”)
and in the southwest end of a seismic panel
published by Turner et al. (1988, fig. 65).
The “Peninsular terrane” corresponds to the
Mesozoic sedimentary rocks southeast of the
Bruin Bay fault.
North of the Black Hills uplift, Worrall
(1991, pl. 2) shows deeply buried synclines
in a folded “carapace” sequence of Late
Cretaceous to Eocene age that underlies his
“Red” Upper Eocene unconformity.
Worrall’s synclines are associated with
coherent seismic reflections that are lost
through the intervening anticlines. We
interpret these features somewhat
differently. We view Worrall’s “synclines”
as grabens that record the earliest rift
subsidence of the North Aleutian basin and
that are filled with Paleocene to Eocene age
strata. We interpret Worrall’s “anticlines”
as horsts that are decapitated by an Upper
Eocene unconformity corresponding to our
seismic horizon “D” (fig. 6). Our horizon
“D” correlates to Worrall’s “Red”
unconformity. The horizon “D”
unconformity separates the rift phase from
the subsequent sag phase of basin
subsidence. The horsts are acoustically
transparent (lack coherent reflections) in
their central areas (fig. 6 and lines “F” and
“G” of Worrall, 1991, pl. 2). We interpret
the horsts to be cored by primarily Mesozoic
magmatic rocks with sparse surviving
bodies of unabsorbed Mesozoic sedimentary
rocks. The acoustic transparency of the
substrate below the “Red” unconformity
north of the graben field in North Aleutian
basin is illustrated at the north ends of lines
“F” and “G” of Worrall (1991, pl. 2).
We have not attempted to map the
southwestward extension of the Bruin Bay
fault in seismic data, instead relying on
magnetic character to separate the northern
magmatic terrane from the southern
sedimentary terrane. But, it is our general
experience that the acoustic appearance of
the Mesozoic substrate on the north
(transparent) is fundamentally different from
the Mesozoic substrate on the south
(stratified/folded). Offshore seismic data
therefore support our partitioning of the
Mesozoic substrate into magmatic and
15
sedimentary terranes juxtaposed along a
southwestern extension of the Bruin Bay
fault.
Figures 5 and 7 show that the most
important gas and oil prospects in the North
Aleutian basin (partly located by Sale 92
leases) occupy the part of the basin that
overlies the Mesozoic magmatic terrane
north of the Bruin Bay fault. This
observation is very significant to conceptual
models for petroleum charge for these
important prospects. Any analogy to the
petroleum system of northern Cook Inlet,
where oil generated in an underlying
Mesozoic basin has charged shallower traps
in Cenozoic rocks, cannot be extended to
this part of the North Aleutian basin. It is
very unlikely that hydrocarbons in any
quantity can be sourced out of the Mesozoic
magmatic terrane beneath the part of the
North Aleutian basin north of the Bruin Bay
fault. These important prospects must
instead depend entirely upon potential
sources within the Tertiary-aged North
Aleutian basin fill, mostly gas-prone, for
petroleum charge.
Mesozoic Stratigraphy and Reservoir
Formations
A stratigraphic chart for the Mesozoic rocks
of the Alaska Peninsula is presented in
figure 8. Sandstones and conglomerates that
might form reservoirs for petroleum include
the Talkeetna, Naknek, Staniukovich,
Herendeen, and Hoodoo (or equivalent
Chignik) Formations. Because the
Mesozoic basins in which these strata were
deposited flanked a volcanic arc, most
clastic sediments contain great quantities of
volcanic and plutonic rock fragments. Upon
burial, the volcanic material readily
degraded into laumontite and other zeolite-
group minerals that fully occluded
intergranular porosity. Dutrow (1982, p. 1)
describes typical Jurassic-age sandstones in
the Cathedral River 1 well as follows:
“Petrographic examination of 43
samples from Amoco Cathedral
River No. 1 sand, showed the
lithology to be predominately
volcanic-rich litharenites or
feldspathic litharenites with only
minor amounts of arkose, lithic
arkose, and quartzite (the
classification scheme used is Folk,
1968). Typically the sands were
compacted with no remaining
porosity. Often volcanic rock
fragments became incoherent with
compaction, molding around grains
to form an interstitial matrix.
Where compaction did not reduce
all intergranular voids, authigenic
cements formed. The cements are
chlorite/smectite, laumontite, and
carbonate. Veins of
laumontite/heulandite cut the
volcaniclastic sands. These phases
also replace pre-existing minerals.
The most common accessory
minerals were a green hornblendic
amphibole, epidote and opaques
(clasts and pyrite framboids.”(sic)
Generally, younger sandstone formations
contain less volcanic debris because of re-
cycling of older clastic formations and
winnowing of volcanic particles made
susceptible to disintegration by chemical
and physical weathering (Burk, 1965, fig.
10). Younger formations have also been
less deeply buried because of their position
at the top of the sedimentary stack and have
presumably suffered less from compaction
and thermally-driven pore-filling diagenesis.
For both of these reasons, the Staniukovich
and Naknek Formations and younger
Cretaceous units form the best candidates
for viable petroleum reservoirs among the
Mesozoic assemblage (fig. 8).
The prolific oil fields of northern Cook Inlet
are underlain by the Upper Jurassic Naknek
16
Formation sandstones, which are underlain
by the Middle Jurassic Tuxedni Group oil
source beds, which are in turn underlain by
the Lower Jurassic Talkeetna Formation
sandstones (Magoon, 1994). Despite this
close association with the Tuxedni Group oil
source beds (proven to have generated 1.6
billion barrels of oil reserves now residing in
overlying Tertiary reservoirs), there is
virtually no oil production in northern Cook
Inlet from the associated Mesozoic
sandstone formations. The Naknek and
Talkeetna Formations are completely
cemented and barren of hydrocarbons. We
note a single exception at the McArthur
River oil field where a small amount
(<300,000 bbls) of oil was produced over a
9-year period from fractured Lower Jurassic
rocks (Talkeetna Formation) below the main
Tertiary-age oil reservoir (AOGCC, 2001, p.
183). The generation of oil out of the
Middle Jurassic oil source beds occurred
mostly in Tertiary time (Magoon, 1994, fig.
22.7), after 100 million years of burial stasis
during which diagenesis and compaction
completely destroyed the pore systems in
Mesozoic sandstone formations. An
intriguing concept for petroleum exploration
of Mesozoic sandstones postulates that in
some areas an early (presumably
Cretaceous) cycle of burial sufficient to
generate hydrocarbons might have charged
the still-porous Mesozoic sandstones with
petroleum and protected the pore systems
from destruction. However, this was not the
case in the Cook Inlet area.
Cenozoic Stratigraphy, Reservoir
Formations, and Play Sequences
The most complete point of stratigraphic
control for the North Aleutian basin fill is
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
stratigraphic test well that was drilled in
1983 by an industry consortium. Detailed
descriptions of the results of that well are
given by Turner et al. (1988). The
stratigraphy of the COST well is presented
in figure 9 (full-scale version available as
plate 2).
Three play sequences based on COST well
stratigraphy are defined for purposes of this
assessment. Each play sequence embraces
groups of rocks that share some
commonality in reservoir formation
characteristics and relationships to
prominent unconformities and seismic
markers. The play sequences considerably
overlap biostratigraphic boundaries but
correspond sufficiently to established
stratigraphic units to permit co-opting the
formal nomenclature into our play sequence
terminology (shown in fig. 9, right column).
Detterman (1990) extended Alaska
Peninsula stratigraphic nomenclature to the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well and we
adopt his correlations for this assessment
(shown in fig. 9, left column). A
stratigraphic correlation chart in figure 10
(full-scale version available as plate 3)
shows the relationship of the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well to several onshore
penetrations of Tertiary rocks.
The Milky River Biogenic Gas (play 4) play
sequence ranges in age from Early Pliocene
to Holocene and includes the upper part of
the Milky River Formation and overlying
unnamed Quaternary-age rocks. The play
sequence is 2,148 feet thick at the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. The play
sequence overlies seismic horizon “A”,
which generally is not domed over basement
uplifts. The play sequence consists of
middle to outer neritic unconsolidated lithic
pebbly sands, mud, ooze, and clay (Turner et
al., 1988, p. 14).
The Bear Lake-Stepovak (plays 1, 3) play
sequence ranges in age from Late Oligocene
17
to Early Pliocene in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well and includes the upper
part of the Stepovak Formation, the entire
Bear Lake Formation, and the lower part of
the Milky River Formation. The play
sequence is 5,390 feet thick at the COST
well and thickens to approximately 7,300
feet in seismic data along the north coast of
the Alaska Peninsula (Turner et al., 1988,
figs. 66, 67). The Bear Lake-Stepovak play
sequence overlies seismic horizon “C”
which is a regional mid-Tertiary
unconformity. On parts of the Black Hills
uplift, seismic horizon “C” places Oligocene
rocks directly upon Mesozoic rocks.
Seismic horizon “C” does not contact
basement over the basement horsts in the
southwest half of the North Aleutian basin,
but overlies a sandy sequence and a regional
shale sequence in the lower part of the
Stepovak Formation (fig. 10). Seismic
horizon “D” incises basement on the horsts
in the southwest half of the North Aleutian
basin. The seismic profile in figure 6 (and
pl. 1) shows that most of the strata in the
Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence are
domed over the basement horsts in the
southwest half of the North Aleutian basin.
The Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence at
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well is
rich (61% of play sequence) in thick (up to
277 feet), porous (up to 40+% porosity), and
permeable (up to 7,722 md) sandstones.
Some statistics for sandstone beds in the
Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence are
summarized in figure 11. The play sequence
contains a total of 3,120 net feet of
sandstones in beds greater than 10 feet thick
(an assumed practical minimum thickness
for productive reservoir) and 1,443 net feet
in beds over 100 feet thick. Figure 12
shows core porosity versus depth for
sandstones in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well. Core porosity is also posted
with density log sandstone porosity in figure
9 and plate 2. For the Bear Lake-Stepovak
play sequence, core porosity ranges between
20% and 40%. Figure 13 summarizes core
porosity and permeability data and we note
that the 20% to 40% porosity range is
associated with multi-Darcy permeability
values. Figure 14 summarizes core
permeability data versus depth and we
observe that the statistical fit forecasts
preservation of permeability at tens of
millidarcies (at the mean) down to the base
of the Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence.
A core porosity histogram for the Bear
Lake-Stepovak play sequence is shown in
the upper panel of figure 15. A core
permeability histogram for the Bear Lake-
Stepovak play sequence is likewise
presented in the upper panel of figure 16.
Because of the ample, thick sandstones and
the excellent preservation of porosity and
permeability, the Bear Lake-Stepovak play
sequence is the most attractive reservoir
target in the North Aleutian basin.
The Tolstoi (play 2) play sequence ranges in
age from Early Eocene to Early Oligocene
in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well
and includes the Tolstoi Formation and the
lower, shaly part of the Stepovak Formation
(9,555-10,380 ft bkb) that forms a regional
seal (fig. 10 and pl. 3). The minimum
thickness (base not penetrated) of the Tolstoi
play sequence is 9,255 feet at the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. The Tolstoi
play sequence probably extends through
Paleocene strata down to Mesozoic volcano-
plutonic “basement” beneath the COST
well. Seismic horizon “D” occurs within the
upper part of the Tolstoi play sequence and
corresponds to a regional Upper Eocene
unconformity that truncates the crests of
basement uplifts in the southwest half of the
North Aleutian basin (fig. 6 and pl. 1). As
shown in the sandstone thickness histograms
of figure 11, the Tolstoi play sequence is
characterized by sparse (10% to 30% of
18
interval), thin (maximum = 57 ft)
sandstones. In the upper part of the Tolstoi
play sequence, from 7,900 to 10,380 feet in
the COST well, the sandstones are porous
and permeable (figs. 12, 14, 15, and 16).
This part of the sequence, like the overlying
Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence, is
draped over the basement uplifts. Below
10,380 feet, the sandstones are largely
impermeable (fig. 16, lower panel) because
diagenesis (to clay and zeolites) has softened
volcanic clasts and the sandstone grain
framework has collapsed, as described in
petrographic studies by AGAT (1983, p. 2)
and Turner et al. (1988, p. 23-24). This
collapse post-dates some early pore-filling
cement, around which formerly rigid
volcanic framework grains (softened by
diagenesis) have flowed (AGAT, 1983).
The abrupt loss of permeability in
sandstones approximately coincides with the
onset of overpressure at 11,200 feet bkb (fig.
9 and pl. 2) in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well. The diagenetically-induced
implosion of the intergranular pore system
and expulsion of fluids may be a prime
driver for the overpressure (Turner et al.,
1988, p. 217). Core porosity data for the
Tolstoi play sequence are summarized in the
histograms of figure 15. Most of the
measured core porosity in the Tolstoi play
sequence below 10,380 feet bkb in the
COST well is microporosity in altered
volcanic rock fragments.
The lower part of the Tolstoi play sequence
(below 10,380 ft/seismic horizon “D”) is
truncated by faults at the flanks of basement
uplifts and would form the primary reservoir
targets for prospects ringing uplift flanks.
The probable absence of porous sandstones
in the lower part of the Tolstoi play
sequence forms an area of great risk for the
flank prospects.
Petroleum Systems in North Aleutian
Basin Plays
Thermal Maturity of North Aleutian
Basin Fill
The first important concern about the
viability of any potential petroleum systems
in North Aleutian basin is whether or not
any rocks have been buried to depths and
temperatures sufficient to convert organic
matter to oil or gas. Figure 17 summarizes
vitrinite reflectance data for the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well and offers
statistical fits to data sets above and below a
discontinuity at 15,620 feet bkb. The
vitrinite reflectance discontinuity has been
cited as evidence for an unconformity at
15,620 ft bkb (Turner et al., 1988, p. 192;
Robertson Research, 1983). If so, the
statistical fits indicate “erosion” of 647 feet
of section at the “unconformity.” As an
alternative interpretation, we suggest that the
discontinuity at 15,620 ft bkb is a 647-foot
sequence gap at the point where the well
penetrated an unrecognized normal fault.
We note that no vitrinite reflectance
discontinuities are associated with known
regional unconformities corresponding to
either seismic horizon “B” (5,675 ft; Upper
Oligocene), seismic horizon “C” (7,900 feet,
Upper Oligocene), or seismic horizon “D”
(10,380 ft; Upper Eocene). A 20-degree
structural dip first noted in core 19 (Turner
et al., 1988, p. 26) probably indicates the
presence of an angular unconformity
between flat-lying strata at the base of core
18 (16,028.5 ft bkb) and dipping strata at the
top of core 19 (16,701 ft bkb). This is the
“Lower Eocene unconformity” posted in the
seismic profile of figure 6 (pl. 1) and in the
stratigraphic column of figure 9 (pl. 2). As
with the shallower regional unconformities,
no discontinuity in vitrinite reflectance is
associated with this angular unconformity
19
(fig. 17).
The statistical fits to the data sets above and
below the fault gap at 15,620 ft bkb in figure
17 were used to forecast depths to various
isograds 3 that correspond to critical stages in
source maturation, as tabulated (inset) in
figure 17. These isograds are posted on the
seismic profile in figure 6 (and pl. 1) and
show that the principal reservoir section
(between seismic horizons “A” and “C”) in
the sequence domed over the basement
uplifts is thermally immature (pre-oil
generation). Only the much deeper rocks in
the grabens flanking basement uplifts are
thermally mature and capable of having
generated oil or gas. Rocks within the
Mesozoic substrate may be sufficiently
thermally mature to have generated oil or
gas, but in this area these rocks are
interpreted to consist of mostly volcano-
plutonic arc rocks. Successful charging of
prospects in the strata domed over basement
uplifts will require generation of petroleum
in flanking deeps, lateral migration to the
flanks of basement uplifts, and vertical
migration up faults through the regional
shale sequence (approx. the interval between
seismic horizons “C” and “D” in fig. 6 and
pl. 1) in order to reach sandstone reservoirs
in the Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence
(between seismic horizons “A” and “C”).
The basement uplift to the southeast of the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well in figure
6 (and pl. 1) won 73% of the sum of all high
bids in OCS Lease Sale 92 in 1988. All of
the remaining bids in Sale 92 were placed on
tracts over nearby basement uplifts that
similarly dome the overlying Bear Lake-
Stepovak play sequence and that are also
adjoined by areas of deep subsidence where
3
“Isograd” is used here to denote a surface of fixed
thermal maturity. Any single thermal maturity index
value (TTI, Ro%, etc.) can be used to represent an
isograd.
the basin fill lies within the oil and gas 4
generation zone. It appears that the energy
companies that placed bids on tracts in Sale
92 embraced the basic framework of the
hypothetical petroleum system described
above as that most likely to create
significant petroleum accumulations within
North Aleutian basin. 5 The model requires
generation of large quantities of petroleum
in flanking grabens and migration of the
petroleum several thousands of feet upward
into porous strata domed over basement
uplifts. The minor (small displacement)
faults extending upward from the major
(large displacement), older faults along
uplift flanks are the only faults that penetrate
the regional lower Stepovak shale seal
(overlying seismic horizon “D”; fig. 10 and
pl. 3). These faults may provide the critical
pathways from deep areas of petroleum
generation to shallow traps domed over
uplifts.
Figure 18 presents regional well data for
thermal maturity compiled into a structure
map for the 0.6% vitrinite reflectance
isograd, which generally coincides with the
onset of oil generation (depending on
organic matter composition, oil or gas
generation can begin as low as 0.5% vitrinite
reflectance [liptinitic or Type 1 kerogens];
Dow, 1977, fig. 3). Areas highlighted in
gray represent Tertiary basin fill that
exceeds 0.6% vitrinite reflectance. If rocks
with appropriate organic matter for creation
4
Boreham and Powell (1993, p.149-50) point out
that “humic coals and terrigenous kerogens can form
appreciable quantities of gas over the maturity range
of oil generation….” and “…significant yields of gas
generation before the onset of intense liquid
generation have been experimentally observed for
both hydrogen-poor and hydrogen-rich organic
matter.”
5
Some may have relied upon oil generated in the
Mesozoic substrate. For reasons explained in
previous sections, we believe that the Mesozoic
substrate beneath the key prospects shown in figure 6
is composed of volcano-plutonic rocks.
20
of oil and gas lie within the gray areas, the
latter then become the “oil (and gas)
kitchens” for the basin. Figure 19 maps the
thicknesses of Tertiary-age strata within the
oil generation zone and we note that the
maximum penetrated thickness (minimum,
4,758 ft) is at the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well.
The North Aleutian basin hypothetical “oil
kitchen” is segmented by the presence of a
massive volcanic center at the Port Heiden 1
and Ugashik 1 wells. This volcanic center
produced a thick pile of volcanic flows and
volcaniclastic sediments 33 to 39 millions of
years ago. The volcanic pile is represented
by the Meshik Formation. The Meshik
Formation is age-equivalent to the Stepovak
Formation (Brockway et al., 1975) or
Tolstoi Formation (Detterman, 1990), with
which the volcanic rocks interfinger at the
margins of the volcanic center (fig. 10 and
pl. 3). The segmentation by this volcanic
center of the thermally-mature rocks
flooring North Aleutian basin leaves the
southwest part of the basin with the largest
continuous volume of potentially oil-
generative rocks. This part of the basin has
accordingly formed the primary area of
exploration interest in the past.
The Amak basin fill reaches a maximum
thickness of about 12,500 feet, scarcely 200
feet deeper than the depth to the 0.6%
vitrinite reflectance isograd (12,312 ft
subsea) in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well. It appears that only a very small
volume of rock at the floor of the Amak
basin lies within the oil generation zone. It
is therefore unlikely that significant
quantities of hydrocarbons have been
generated in the Amak basin.
 Source Rock Potential
The second important concern about
potential petroleum systems in the North
Aleutian basin is whether or not any rocks
have the type of organic matter appropriate
for conversion to oil or gas upon heating.
We recognize two groups of potential source
rocks: 1) Mesozoic sedimentary rocks that
underlie the southwest part of North
Aleutian basin and the Black Hills uplift;
and 2) Cenozoic rocks that comprise the
North Aleutian basin fill.
Mesozoic Source Rocks
The principal point of control for the source
rock potential of Mesozoic rocks in the
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area is
the Cathedral River 1 well. Some indicators
for source rock potential of the Mesozoic
rocks in this well are plotted in figure 20.
Mesozoic rocks extend across southern
Alaska (fig. 4) but are known to have
generated significant quantities of oil only in
the northern Cook Inlet area. The Kialagvik
Formation in the Cathedral River 1 well (fig.
20) is age-equivalent to the Middle Jurassic
Tuxedni Group that generated the oil in
northern Cook Inlet producing fields
(Magoon, 1994). The Kamishak Formation
in the Cathedral River 1 well is age-
equivalent to unnamed Upper Triassic rocks
at Puale Bay that are suspected of
contributing oil to some minor
accumulations and seeps in southern Cook
Inlet and the Alaska Peninsula (Magoon and
Anders, 1992; Magoon, 1994). The Upper
Triassic rocks at Puale Bay form excellent
oil-prone source rocks (Wang et al., 1988,
fig. 4), but are only known from that outcrop
locality and the penetration at the Cathedral
River 1 well.
21
For most of the Mesozoic sequence
penetrated by the Cathedral River 1 well 6 ,
the rocks are rated as poor to fair sources
(TOC) for gas (Hydrogen Index). Two
significant anomalies are observed in figure
20. Shales and tuffaceous limestones in the
interval from 8,700 to 9,300 feet in the
Kialagvik Formation appear to rate as
“good” potential sources for oil and wet gas.
Cherty shales and marlstones in the interval
from 12,000 to 12,700 feet in the Talkeetna
Formation also appear to form “good”
sources for oil and wet gas 7 . These
anomalies are somewhat suspect because the
elevated thermal maturity (>3.0 T.A.I., or
greater than approximately 1.0% vitrinite
reflectance below 7,300 ft bkb) of much of
6
The logged shows and geochemical data in the
Cathedral River 1 well are somewhat problematic in
that oil-base additives were introduced into the
drilling mud at about 7,500 feet. However, no
geochemical anomalies are observed at the first
reported (Borst & Giddens mud log) point of
introduction of “Soltex” at 7,500 feet (fig. 20). The
deeper anomalies rise from an established
“background” and could be reflecting rock
compositions rather than drilling mud contamination,
unless other additives were introduced. An
annotation on the Borst & Giddens mud log at 8,770
feet reports that “abundance of tar noticed in
samples are determined to be contamination as
results (sic) of mud additive reactions of ‘HME’ and
‘SuperLubFlow’”. The anomalies in the TOC and
HI profiles may reflect authentic rock properties, but
the potential contamination clouds the issue (Peters,
1986, p. 324-5) and in this case blocks any
straightforward conclusions. Geochem Laboratories
(Geochem, 1976) reported that samples deeper than
8,600 feet were contaminated, possibly with
“Gilsonite”. We note that Peters (1986, fig. 12)
specifically discusses the Cathedral River 1 case and
concludes that the anomalies are entirely artifacts of
contamination by drilling mud additives.
7
Oil staining is reported (Detterman, 1990) in rocks
immediately above these anomalies. Modest “S1”
(resident hydrocarbons thermally distilled out of
rocks during pyrolysis experiments) anomalies (rise
from 0.2 to 0.7 mg/g [upper zone] or 0.2 to 1.07 mg/g
[lower zone]) suggest a possible association of the
TOC and Hydrogen Index anomalies with migrated
oil.
the Cathedral River 1 sequence indicates
that most of the original oil generation
potential of the Mesozoic rocks has been
depleted. A single vitrinite reflectance
analysis (6 measurements) at 10,650 feet
yielded a mean value of 1.47%, well past the
1.35% vitrinite reflectance isograd marking
exhaustion of all oil generation potential.
The top of the prominent geochemical
anomaly within the Talkeetna Formation lies
at 12,000 ft bkb, 1,350 feet below the lone
vitrinite reflectance measurement.
The pyrolysis data are inconclusive because
of doubts about analytical results (possibly
distorted by mud additive contaminants, as
footnoted) and the high thermal maturity of
the Mesozoic sequence (original generative
potential largely depleted). However, the
Cathedral River 1 data are at least
permissive of the potential existence of oil
sources within the Mesozoic sedimentary
rocks beneath the Black Hills uplift. That
some oil source rocks once existed within
the Mesozoic sequence beneath the Black
Hills uplift is supported by the observation
of oil shows throughout the Cathedral River
1 well. Oil shows were first noted as
shallow as 390 feet bkb, far above the first
reported introduction of the troublesome
drilling mud contaminants at 7,500 feet.
The time of generation of this oil is
unknown. Near the surface, the Cathedral
River 1 well entered Mesozoic rocks with
T.A.I. values of 2.5 (fig. 20), approximately
equivalent to 0.65% vitrinite reflectance. A
vitrinite reflectance of 0.65% corresponds to
a depth of 13,287 feet bkb in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. Clearly, the
rocks in the Cathedral River 1 well were
previously much more deeply buried.
Because the well is located on the Black
Hills uplift where Mesozoic strata are
unconformably overlain by Eocene-age
rocks (north flank), it appears that the
thermal maturation occurred during a
22
Mesozoic cycle of deep burial. Thus, there
is substantial risk that Mesozoic oil sources
in this area generated and expelled their oil
long before the deposition of Tertiary-age
reservoir sandstones or the formation of
drape anticlines in Oligocene strata atop the
Black Hills uplift.
Tertiary Source Rocks
The principal point of control for the source
rock potential of the Tertiary-age fill for
North Aleutian basin is the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well. A graphical summary
of source rock geochemical information is
attached as plate 4. An Excel spreadsheet
containing most available geochemical data
for the COST well is included as Appendix
2. The data in Appendix 2 were extracted
from the original reports by Exlog (1983)
and Robertson Research (1983), which are
attached as Adobe Acrobat (pdf) files to this
report as Appendix 4 and Appendix 5,
respectively.
Some indicators for source potential (TOC)
and hydrocarbon type (hydrogen index or
“HI”) in the COST well are plotted in figure
21. Total organic carbon (TOC) data
suggest that source potential ranges from
“poor” to “very good.” Hydrogen index
(HI) values suggest mostly gas sources with
some intervals where HI>300 that might be
capable of generating oil. Sample
descriptions reveal that most samples with
TOC values exceeding 1.0% include coal, as
either discrete fragments in cuttings or coaly
laminations in core samples. In the several
depth intervals below 8,000 feet in figure 21
where HI>300, we note that nearly all of the
elevated HI values are associated with rock
sequences described as containing coal.
The key question then is whether or not
these high-HI coals, or possibly non-coal
lithologies mixed with coal material in
samples, are legitimately capable of
generating oil.
Source Potential of Coal-Bearing Rocks
Exlog (1983, p. 8) attempted to remove the
coal (by water flotation) from a suite of
cuttings samples and then conducted
separate pyrolysis 8 experiments on the
“coal-removed” and “coal-retained” sample
suites. Both data sets are shown in the well
profiles for pyrolysis data in figure 21 and
plate 4. Figure 22a compares these two
Exlog data sets in a modified Van Krevelen
diagram. The plot fields for “coal-
removed” and “coal-retained” sample suites
in figure 22a essentially overlap with several
samples from both suites yielding HI>300.
One possible conclusion from the Exlog
experiment is that both coal-bearing and
non-coal-bearing lithologies in the COST
well are capable of generating liquid
hydrocarbons. A second possible
conclusion is that the Exlog 9 method for
removing coal from cuttings was
unsuccessful and that the high HI values in
both sample suites are associated with coal
material. Clearly, a more explicit means of
evaluating the source potential of the well
samples is needed. We first need to
establish the role of coal-bearing samples in
generating the high HI values noted in parts
of the COST well. We secondly need to
establish the liquid-generating potential of
the coals themselves.
8
Samples are heated, driving off existing petroleum
(bitumen) and then cracking the organic matter and
releasing petroleum-like materials. This method is
fast and inexpensive compared to elemental analysis
and can yield results that can be used in a similar
way.
9
Use of trade names or references to specific
corporate entities or products in this report is for
descriptive purposes only and does not constitute
endorsement of these products or companies by the
U.S. Minerals Management Service
23
Cuttings samples are problematic because
unstable formations like coal may
spontaneously collapse (“cave”) into the
uncased part of a wellbore at any time and
mix with the actual cuttings carried away
from the drill face to the surface. A cuttings
sample may contain materials from any
depth in the uncased or “open” part of a well
and may not represent the collected drill
interval. Unless “cave” materials are
selectively removed, bulk analyses of
cuttings samples will not truly represent the
drill interval.
Sidewall and conventional core data clarify
the link between the presence of coal and
elevated HI values in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well. Figure 22b shows a
modified Van Krevelen diagram with
pyrolysis data for core samples from the
COST well (Robertson Research, 1983,
App. III). Samples described as coal-
bearing are plotted separately from samples
for which descriptions did not note the
presence of coal. All core samples with HI
values exceeding 151 are described as
containing coal by Robertson Research
(1983, App. II). Among sidewall cores, the
highest HI value observed for coal-free
samples is 123. Among conventional core
samples, the highest HI value observed for
coal-free samples is 151. Coal-free core
samples therefore appear to be primarily
sources for gas (characterized by HI<150).
But, what about the coal-bearing core
samples with HI>150? Could these coal-
bearing rocks form potential sources for oil?
Figure 22c shows a Van Krevelen-type 10
10
The Robertson Research (1983, App. VII) data set
reports O (oxygen) and S (sulfur) as combined into a
single value. The classification fields in figures 22c
and 22d were extracted from a published diagram
plotting H/C versus O/C (Tissot and Welte, 1984, fig.
II.4.14). The presence of significant quantities of
sulfur may shift the data to the right and distort
diagram with elemental data 11 for sidewall
and conventional core samples, with coal-
bearing and coal-free samples plotted
separately. All samples fall within (or to the
right of) the classification area for Type III
(gas-prone) organic matter. Samples in
figure 22c with [O+S]/C elemental ratios
greater than 0.6 are atypical and may contain
sulfur or oxygen-rich matter like lignite or
woody material 12 (Tissot and Welte, 1984,
fig. II.8.6, p. 240).
Nine core samples containing coal that have
HI>150 (HI range, 200-373; mean HI=289)
and for which elemental data are available
are plotted in figure 22d. The oil-generating
potential suggested by the high HI values for
these 9 coal-bearing core samples is not
supported by elemental data. Figure 22d
shows that none of the nine COST well core
samples plot within the Type I or Type II
classification fields where algal coals are
usually found. All 9 core samples with
HI>150 are shown by elemental data to
contain primarily Type III organic matter
and to therefore be gas-prone.
In pyrolysis experiments coals can yield
specious results that improperly “type”
organic matter. Coals sometimes yield high
pyrolysis HI values that over-estimate the
capacity to generate liquid petroleum
(Peters, 1986, p. 322). Another problem is
that thermally-mature coals may yield low
oxygen index (OI) values during pyrolysis
because more oxygen is released as carbon
monoxide (not detected by device) rather
than carbon dioxide (detected by device)
(Peters, 1986, p. 322). Both of these
pyrolysis responses of coals would lead to
relationships to traditional kerogen classification
fields.
11
H, hydrogen; C, carbon; O, oxygen; and S, sulfur.
Obtained by chemical analysis of isolated kerogens.
12
“Woody fibers” were described in cuttings from
2,580 to 4,320 ft md (Robertson Research, 1983, App.
II).
24
an incorrect interpretation of the type of
organic matter. Robertson Research (1983,
p. 9) raised another problem wherein the
coal-bearing samples in the COST well may
have yielded high HI values and low OI
values because of the presence of solid
bitumen. This has the effect of shifting data
points toward the y-axis (fig. 22b) and
perhaps out of the classification field for
Type III kerogen and into the classification
field for Type II kerogen.
Given the ambiguities of interpreting coal
pyrolysis data, it seems clear that elemental
data provide a more reliable way to evaluate
the oil-generating potential of the coal-
bearing Tertiary rocks in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well. The elemental data at
hand indicate dominance of gas-prone Type
III kerogens in coal and non-coal lithologies
alike. Oil-prone algal coals, if present, were
not sampled by the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well.
Source Potential of “Amorphous” Interval,
15,620-17,155 ft bkb
The part of the COST well below the fault
cut at 15,620 ft (fig. 17) is associated with
abundant “amorphous” (oil-prone) kerogens,
high H/C values, high gas “wetness,” 13 and
oil shows. These outwardly signal the
possible presence of potential oil sources in
what is otherwise a nonmarine, coal-bearing
clastic sequence (fig. 9). A review of the
characteristics of what we here informally
term the “amorphous” interval follows.
The part of the COST well below the fault
cut at 15,620 feet drew attention soon after
the well was drilled because it is associated
with high fractions (30% to 55%) of
“amorphous” (i.e., unstructured) kerogens as
13
Gas present in the tops of sealed cans containing
cuttings samples.
observed in microscope studies (upper
panel, pl. 4). “Amorphous” kerogens
usually signal algal origins (Type I kerogen)
and in dominant proportions may form a
source for liquid hydrocarbons.
The “amorphous” interval probably does not
form a source for oil. The amorphous
kerogen content in the COST well samples
is probably insufficient to form effective oil
sources. Robertson Research (1983, p. 6-7)
claims that amorphous kerogens must
exceed 65% by volume 14 relative to the 3
other kerogen classes to form an effective
oil source. Microscopy studies indicate
abundances ranging between 30% and 50%
in the “amorphous” interval in the COST
well (upper panel, pl. 4).
Other data indicate poor potential for
generation of liquid hydrocarbons by the
“amorphous” interval. The interval in the
COST well is associated with low values for
HI, low genetic potential (S1+S2), mostly
low elemental H/C ratios (4 exceptions
noted below), and high pristane/phytane
ratios (upper panel, pl. 4). The latter all
argue for predominantly Type III organic
matter in the “amorphous” interval. To
explain the curiously gas-prone character,
Robertson Research (1983, p. 8) speculated
that the “amorphous” kerogens between
16,009.3 and 17,143 ft are actually either
oxidized relicts of original amorphous
material or perhaps finely divided vitrinite
that was incorrectly classified by
microscopy. Tissot and Welte (1984, p.
158, fig. II.4.16) illustrate examples of poor
correlation between “amorphous” kerogens
and source type from elemental analysis. In
either case, based on these data, the
“amorphous” interval in the COST well is
14
A large proportional volume relative to other
classes of kerogens (exinite, vitrinite, and inertinite)
is required because of the low density of amorphous
kerogen.
25
viewed as primarily a source for gas.
A depth profile for elemental H/C data for
the COST well is shown in the upper panel
of plate 4. Elemental data classify most of
the strata penetrated by the well as potential
sources for dry gas or wet gas. However,
within the “amorphous” interval below
15,620 feet, four conventional core samples
yielded elemental H/C ratios greater than
1.0, 15 suggesting some liquid-generating
potential. These samples are coal-free and
are described as gray or brown massive
shales (Robertson Research, 1983, App. II).
Vitrinite reflectance values for these four
samples range from 0.98% to 1.01%
(Robertson Research, 1983, App. III). At
this level of thermal maturity, these H/C
values would normally be associated with an
oil-prone source (as classified by the profile
in pl. 4). However, HI values for these four
samples range from 88 to 120, indicating
instead a gas-prone source. 16 Also, these
four samples yielded high [O+S]/C ratios
that associate them with Type III organic
matter in a Van Krevelen-type diagram (the
four samples are highlighted in fig. 22c).
Robertson Research noted that reflected-
light microscopy revealed “medium” to
“high” presence of solid bitumen in these
four samples and concluded that this
material, rather than kerogens, may be the
source of the elevated H/C ratios (Robertson
Research, 1983, p. 8, 190-192; Appendix 5,
this report).
Headspace gas wetness ranges up to 95% in
the “amorphous” interval, but most values
range between 75% and 85% and heavier
gases (C5+) form less than 20% of
headspace gases (lower panel, pl. 4).
Robertson Research (1983, p. 10) indicate
that these data suggest a wet gas source and
15
Ranging from 1.06 to 1.12; samples at 16,029.0 ft,
16,703.7 ft, 16,714.6 ft, and 16,719.6 ft.
16
Oil-prone kerogens at this thermal maturity should
yield HI>200 (see Baskin, 1997).
a low probability for generation of
significant quantities of oil.
Finally, the oil shows logged in and just
above (15,450-15,500 ft bkb) the
“amorphous” interval are actually quite
sparse and are described as “slight” or
“trace” in the sample (“mud”) logs (lower
panel, pl. 4). Detailed analyses of extracts
of these oil shows and correlations to
possible source rocks are described below.
Source Potential of Tertiary Basin Fill and
Assessment Model
From these data, we conclude that most of
the depth intervals in the COST well that
appear from pyrolysis results to form
potential oil sources are actually coal-
bearing intervals that are dominated by Type
III (gas-prone) organic matter. Although
some exceptions are known, 17 coal is not
commonly a source for oil because the
typically modest quantities of petroleum
liquids that are generated are often
sequestered (“sorbed” into extensive internal
pores) within the coal (Levine, 1993, p. 40,
71). Other intervals of interest for oil source
potential, such as the “amorphous” interval,
appear on the basis of other data to form
potential sources for gas or wet gas, with
possible minor quantities of liquids.
We conclude, as did Robertson Research
(1983, p. 1-9) and Turner et al. (1988, p.
190-191) from consideration of all
geochemical data, that the Tertiary sequence
penetrated by the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well contains primarily Type III
organic matter. This gas-prone organic
17
In the best-known example, Upper Cretaceous and
Tertiary coals in the Gippsland basin of Australia are
credited as the source for liquid petroleum reserves
of 3.762 billions of barrels and gas reserves of 7.8
trillions of cubic feet (Clayton, 1993, p. 187, tbl. 1).
26
matter occurs in coal beds or is dispersed as
finely divided material in clastic rocks and
forms poor to very good sources for gas,
with minor potential for condensates and
light oil. Our conclusions about the source
potential for the Tertiary fill in the North
Aleutian basin are reflected in our
assessment models for plays 1, 2, and 6
(tbls. 3, 4, and 8), which are primarily
sourced by Tertiary rocks. For these three
plays, we estimate that there is a 10%
chance that any pool will be filled
completely with oil and an 80% chance that
any pool will be filled completely with gas.
For the 10% fraction of the overall pools in
which free oil is overlain by a gas cap
(“mixed” case), we estimate that 90% of the
pool volume is occupied by gas. Although
these model input values are speculative,
they reflect our sentiment that the Tertiary
fill of the North Aleutian basin is most likely
a source for gas with some potential for
minor quantities of petroleum liquids.
Oil and Gas Occurrences and Biomarker
Correlations
Gas was recovered by three flow tests at
rates summing to 90 Mcfg/d from 3 zones in
the Tolstoi Formation in the Becharof Lake
1 well. Gas was also recovered in flow tests
from two intervals in the Tolstoi Formation
at rates of 5 to10 Mcfg/d (with 300-400
barrels of water per day) in the David River
1/1A well. Oil and gas shows were noted
elsewhere in wells offshore and in wells on
the Alaska Peninsula (annotated in fig. 2).
Gas seeps are observed as gas “chimneys” in
some proprietary seismic profiles on the
Black Hills uplift. Onshore, oil and gas
seeps are known primarily from the area
near the east end of Becharof Lake, where
they are observed along the axes of exposed
anticlines in Mesozoic rocks or along
important faults. Gas seep samples are
composed mostly of carbon dioxide and
other non-combustible gases, with minor
hydrocarbons, as shown in the plot and inset
data table of figure 23. These gas seeps are
probably the result of magmatic intrusions
that are decarbonating limestones in the
subsurface. Reifenstuhl (2005) however
reports a gas seep from Oil Creek 18 that
consists of 91% methane, 7% nitrogen, and
2% carbon dioxide. Natural gas recovered 19
from the Becharof Lake 1 well consists of
87.5% methane, 4.7% ethane, 2.3% propane,
0.8% butane, 1.0% hydrogen, and 3.7%
“other” gases (AOGCC, 1985, DST data).
This gas is very different from most of the
nearby seeps which are mostly carbon
dioxide (fig. 23). Methane carbon isotope
(C13 and C12 isotope ratios) data for cuttings
headspace gases in the Becharof Lake 1 well
are shown in figure 24a. Above 3,000 feet,
the gas is primarily biogenic in origin;
below 5,500 feet, it is primarily thermogenic
in origin. Gases are of mixed origins in the
intermediate interval (3,000 to 5,500 ft) of
Bear Lake and Stepovak Formations.
Thermally-mature Tertiary strata reach
thicknesses of 1,127 ft in the area of the
Becharof Lake 1 well (fig. 19). The
relatively dry thermogenic gas (wetness =
8.2%) recovered in the DST in the Becharof
Lake 1 well (fig. 24b) is probably Tertiary-
sourced.
Oil seeps emanating from Jurassic rocks
along the axes of exposed anticlines
attracted the earliest exploration drilling to
the Alaska Peninsula in the early 1900’s.
Geochemical studies of these seep oils
suggest that they were sourced from Upper
Triassic rocks (unnamed) like those exposed
at Puale Bay (locale posted in fig. 2), with
18
Four miles west of Puale Bay (fig. 2).
19
Recovered in a DST (drill stem test) (30 mcfg/d)
from the interval 7,470 to 7,550 feet (Tolstoi Fm.,
near top of oil window).
27
possible contribution from Middle Jurassic
rocks (Kialagvik Fm.) like those exposed in
the same area (Magoon and Anders, 1992).
The Upper Triassic rocks exposed at Puale
Bay are minimally thermally mature
(TMAX= ~438ºC, or about 0.7% vitrinite
reflectance) and form excellent oil-prone
source rocks (Wang et al., 1988, figs. 4, 16).
Where age-equivalent Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks underlie North Aleutian
basin and the Black Hills uplift, they might
form sources for oil migrating into overlying
Tertiary-age rocks. The Mesozoic rocks
exposed along the Black Hills uplift, like at
Puale Bay, are minimally thermally mature
at the surface (TAI=2.5, or about 0.65%
vitrinite reflectance, Cathedral River 1 well)
and any oil moving out of them into Tertiary
reservoirs would probably be re-migrated
from disrupted pools that formed prior to
Tertiary time. Most exposures of Mesozoic
rocks along the Alaska Peninsula south of
the Bruin Bay fault are mapped at a level of
thermal maturity exceeding 0.6% vitrinite
reflectance (approximate onset of oil
generation) or greater (Johnsson and
Howell, 1996).
Modest oil and gas shows and gas “wetness”
values of 30% to 95% (lower panel, pl. 4)
were noted below 15,450 feet bkb (most
prominent from 15,700 to 16,740 ft bkb) in
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well.
These shows and the high gas wetness
values may signal the presence of migrated
liquid petroleum. It is therefore important to
determine the source of these liquid
hydrocarbons. Were they generated by
Type III organic matter like that dominating
the Tertiary rocks penetrated by the COST
well? Or, are these minor petroleum liquids
evidence for unseen oil sources within
Mesozoic rocks beneath the North Aleutian
basin?
To try to identify the source of the liquid
hydrocarbons below 15,450 ft in the COST
well, we conducted extraction and
biomarker studies on “show interval”
samples borrowed from the State of Alaska
archive in Eagle River, Alaska.
Hydrocarbons were extracted from two
composites of show interval samples 20 by
Baseline DGSI and analyzed for carbon
isotopes, metals, and biomarkers (Baseline
DGSI, 2003; attached as Appendix 3 of this
report) for comparison to data for regional
oils and source rocks published by Magoon
and Anders (1992). The two extractions
obtained in this study supplement a less
robust data suite on 7 extractions in the
show interval in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well previously obtained by
Robertson Research (1983, App. IX;
attached as Appendix 2 and Appendix 5 of
this report). Selected extract data are listed
in table 2. Extract data are shown in figures
25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, and are selectively
profiled on depth in plate 4.
We conclude from the extract data that the
oil shows in the interval from 15,450 to
16,800 feet bkb in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well originated from nonmarine
Tertiary rocks rather than marine Mesozoic
rocks. This interpretation extends from the
following observations:
1. Low Sulfur Content Suggests
Tertiary Sources. The sulfur
contents of Mesozoic-sourced oils in
the Cook Inlet range from 0.04% to
0.23% (average 0.11%) while those
from the Alaska Peninsula oil seeps
(from Middle Jurassic rocks) range
20
One sample composite was collected from
conventional core chips every foot: cores 18 and 19,
16006-16720 ft bkb overall. A second sample
composite was collected from cuttings, 10-ft
intervals, 15,700-16,800 ft bkb. At the time the
interval from 15,700 to 16,800 feet was drilled, the
well was open below 9-5/8 inch casing set at 13,287
ft bkb (Turner et al., 1988, p. 7).
28
from 0.20% to 0.21%. Sulfur
contents for Tertiary-sourced
condensates in Cook Inlet range
from 0.03% to 0.05%, much lower
than the Mesozoic oils (all data from
Magoon and Anders, 1992, tbl.
13.1). In two extracts of the show
interval in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well, sulfur levels were
below the detection limit of 0.01%
(Baseline DGSI, 2003). The low
sulfur contents of the COST well
extracts are consistent with a source
in nonmarine Tertiary rocks.
2. Isoprenoid Ratios Are Terrestrial.
Cross-plots for ratios of pristane/n-
C17 versus phytane/n-C18, as shown
in figure 25, indicate a terrigenous,
oxidizing source environment (i.e.,
Tertiary rocks) for the COST well
extracts, rather than a marine source
(i.e., Mesozoic rocks).
3. Pristane/Phytane Ratios are
Terrestrial. Pristane/phytane ratios
range from 2.14 to 9.30 for the 9
extracts in the show interval in the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well,
as summarized in the histograms in
figure 26. For Tertiary extracts and
oils in Cook Inlet basin,
pristane/phytane ratios similarly
range from 2.5 to 10.0 (Magoon and
Anders, 1992, tbl. 13.1). For
Mesozoic (marine) oils and extracts,
pristane/phytane ratios range
narrowly from 2.7 to 4.0; for Alaska
Peninsula oil seeps the range is from
1.5 to 1.7 (Magoon and Anders,
1992, tbl. 13.1). The
pristane/phytane ratios of the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well extracts
are ranged in a manner most similar
to the range for Tertiary rocks and
oils of Cook Inlet basin.

4. Carbon Isotopes Correlate to
Nonmarine Tertiary. Carbon isotope
data for saturate and aromatic
fractions of extracts from the oil
show interval in the COST well
group decisively with similar data
for nonmarine Tertiary rocks and
Tertiary-sourced condensates of
northern Cook Inlet (fig. 27). The
North Aleutian extracts are distinctly
“heavier” (enriched in C13) than all
of the Mesozoic (marine) rocks and
oils, including the oil seeps on the
Alaska Peninsula.
5. Deficit of Saturates Correlates to
Tertiary Extracts. Ratios among
saturates, aromatics, and non-
hydrocarbons for 9 extracts from the
show interval in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well, shown in figure
28a, are highly deficient in saturates
relative to Mesozoic rocks and oils.
Although highly variable as a group,
the North Aleutian extracts are
mostly saturate-deficient like the
extracts of Tertiary rocks from Cook
Inlet. The North Aleutian cuttings
sample extract (MMSAK2003-2)
forms an exception. It is relatively
saturate-rich and plots very close to a
Tertiary-sourced condensate from
Cook Inlet in figure 28a.
In addition, C30 steranes are absent, C29
steroids slightly predominate (C29:C28:C27
= 43.6:22.5:33.0 [MMSAK2003-1] and
47.7:23.4:29.9 [MMSAK2003-2]), oleanane
is present (oleonane/hopane= 0.22-0.29),
and the carbon preference index (Bray and
Evans, CPI24-34) 21 is greater than 1.0 (CPI =
21
Baseline DGSI (2003) calculate an “OEP” (odd-
even preference) which ranges from 1.10 to 1.22.
Another index reported by Baseline DGSI, CPIMarzi,
ranges from 1.03 to 1.07 (see Marzi et al., 1993).
29
1.078-1.160). The absence of C30 steranes
is consistent with terrestrial source (Peters
and Moldowan, 1993, tbl. 3.1.5). Sterane
ratios, plotted in the ternary diagram of
figure 28b, suggest mixing of marine and
nonmarine depositional environments in the
source sequence. Oleananes are generally
associated with Late Cretaceous or Tertiary
angiosperms (flowering plants) (Waples and
Machihara, 1991, p. 54) and are not found in
older rocks. Unless swept up in the course
of migration through Tertiary rocks, their
presence in these extracts seems to preclude
origination from Jurassic- or Triassic-aged
sources.
Magoon and Anders (1992) and Magoon
(1994) have noted that extracts from Upper
Triassic potential oil source rocks exposed at
Puale Bay (fig. 2) are enriched in C19 to
C29 tricyclic terpanes relative to extracts
from Middle Jurassic or Tertiary rocks.
Some oils collected from wells and seeps in
southern Cook Inlet (Magoon and Anders,
1992, spls. 37-43) are also enriched in
tricyclics relative to oils in northern Cook
Inlet, and Magoon (1994) suggests that the
high tricyclics indicate some contribution
from Upper Triassic oil sources (mixed with
the more typical Middle Jurassic Tuxedni
Gp. oils). In the more general case, Clayton
(1993, tbls. 1, 2) notes that tricyclic terpanes
are rarely abundant in oils derived from coal
or coaly organic matter. If tricyclic
terpanes are present in the COST well
extracts, it may imply origination from
Upper Triassic rocks beneath North Aleutian
basin.
Figure 29a is an excerpt from an M/Z 191 22
22
M/Z, or M/e, is the mass/charge ratio of ions
fragmented by an electron beam in the GCMS device.
M/Z controls how ions are separated, displaced, and
sequentially detected through manipulation by the
magnetic field of the mass spectrometer (Waples and
Machihara, 1991, p. 11-12). M/Z 191 is most
appropriate for obtaining the quantities of tricyclic
chromatogram for terpanes from an extract
from core samples from 16,006 to 16,720
feet in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well. Figure 29b shows the entire M/Z 191
chromatogram for the extract from cuttings
over the interval 15,700 to 16,800 ft bkb.
Both chromatograms show that tricyclic
terpanes are abundant in the show interval
extracts, although subordinate to hopanes
(tricyclic terpanes/hopanes = 0.56 to 0.80).
The presence of these tricyclic terpanes in
the COST well extracts could suggest a link
to Upper Triassic source rocks beneath the
North Aleutian basin. But, a wide spectrum
of depositional environments is associated
with suites of tricyclic terpanes. Crude oils
derived from paralic/deltaic (nearshore
marine), deep water marine, lacustrine, and
“phosphatic” environments all feature robust
suites of tricyclics (Zumberge, 1987, tbl. 5).
Tricyclics have been specifically linked to
Mesozoic lacustrine sources (Waples and
Machihara, 1991, p. 58). A condensate from
the North Cook Inlet gas field, sourced from
Tertiary nonmarine rocks, resembles the
COST well extracts in that it is rich in C19
and C20 tricyclic terpanes (Magoon and
Anders, 1992, fig. 13.9, spl. 18), the latter
linked to vascular land plants (Zumberge,
1987, p. 1630). Figure 29b shows a strong
unidentified peak between the C19 and C20
tricyclic terpanes; a similar unidentified
peak is also present in the North Cook Inlet
field condensate (and reportedly other
northern Cook Inlet condensates) sourced
from Tertiary nonmarine rocks (Magoon and
Anders, 1992, fig. 13.9, spl. 18; p. 264,
268).
These tricyclic terpanes might point to the
existence of effective source rocks within
the Mesozoic substrate beneath the part of
and pentacyclic terpanes because it is the most
abundant ion obtained by fragmentation of these
compounds in an electron beam.
30
the North Aleutian basin north of the
projected trace of the Bruin Bay fault (fig.
32). However, several lines of logic indicate
that the probability of effective Mesozoic
sources, particularly Triassic sources, in this
area is low.
Both published tectonic models for the
“Peninsular terrane” (Mesozoic strata
southeast of the Bruin Bay fault) tie it to the
Jurassic-Cretaceous magmatic arc
(magmatic arc terrane north of Bruin Bay
fault), but in two different ways. Moore and
Connelly (1979) locate the Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks in a fore-arc basin
between the magmatic arc on the northwest
and a subduction zone on the southeast. In
an alternative model, Reed et al. (1983)
locate the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks in a
back-arc basin southeast of both the
magmatic arc and subduction zone to the
northwest. In either case, the Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks would not be expected to
extend in quantity northwest of the
magmatic arc and beneath the North
Aleutian basin. Both models presumably
include the Triassic rocks, which contain
abundant volcanic material of arc origins
(Wang et al., 1988).
These tectonic models are disputed by
geologic mapping that locates some Triassic
sedimentary rocks in the magmatic arc
terrane north of the Bruin Bay fault and
“Peninsular terrane.” Carbonates of the
Upper Triassic Kamishak Formation are
exposed at a few localities among the vast
Jurassic-Cretaceous plutons north of the
Bruin Bay fault in the Cook Inlet area
(Magoon et al., 1976, sh. 2) and near
Becharof Lake (Riehle et al., 1993).
However, even if the Upper Triassic rocks
extend northwest of the Bruin Bay fault into
the magmatic arc terrane, there is some
question about their survival as effective
potential source rocks. Independent
evidence points to a dominantly magmatic
character for the Mesozoic substrate north of
the Bruin Bay fault beneath the Bristol Bay
lowlands and North Aleutian basin. We
consider it unlikely that significant
quantities of effective Triassic oil source
rocks survive among the numerous
magmatic intrusions inferred from regional
context and magnetic data in the Mesozoic
substrate north of the projected Bruin Bay
fault (Case et al., 1988). Geologic mapping
northwest of Cook Inlet indicates that bodies
of Upper Triassic rocks are small, scattered,
and isolated amid very large intrusives of
Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary ages
(Magoon et al., 1976, sh. 2; Riehle et al.,
1993). The Upper Triassic and Jurassic
sedimentary rocks among the intrusives are
thermally overmature at the surface, ranging
from 1.3% vitrinite reflectance (end of oil
generation) to >5.0% (metamorphic) at all
mapped data sites (Johnsson and Howell,
1996). Presumably, this thermal maturation
was achieved in Mesozoic time in concert
with pluton emplacement, before the
formation of the North Aleutian basin.
Lastly, a host of other geochemical data,
reviewed above, seems to link the extracts to
Type III organic matter of Late Cretaceous
or Tertiary age. Regional geology and
geochemical data, taken as a whole, most
persuasively argue for a source within
Tertiary nonmarine rocks for the sparse
petroleum liquids encountered in the deep
part of the COST well.
Petroleum System—Critical Events
A “Lopatin”-style (Lopatin, 1971) burial
history model for the North Aleutian Shelf
31
COST 1 well 23 is shown in figure 30 along
with some timelines for critical events in the
hypothetical petroleum system for the
offshore part of the North Aleutian basin.
Vitrinite reflectance data from the COST
well indicate that the lower part of the rock
column has experienced sufficient thermal
exposure 24 to have generated oil and gas.
But, these data give no information about
when petroleum generation might have
occurred. The Lopatin burial model
combines burial history with thermal
environment to measure thermal exposure
using established thermo-chemical
principles. The purpose of creating a
Lopatin model for the COST well was to
obtain estimates for the times of onset and
duration of key phases of petroleum
generation. The time of petroleum
generation can then be compared to the time
of trap formation to ascertain whether traps
were available to capture petroleum
migrating upward from generation centers.
For example, if petroleum generation
occurred prior to trap formation, the
petroleum may have simply escaped to the
surface and been lost.
The Lopatin burial model in figure 30
highlights the thermal evolution of the
sequence penetrated by the well and an
additional 3,000 feet of unknown strata
interpreted (from seismic data) to lie beneath
the bottom of the COST well. These latter
rocks comprise the most deeply buried strata
in the basin and presumably offer the
earliest opportunity for generation of
petroleum.
Tolstoi Formation strata that are probably
correlative to the unknown sequence
23
Used software “Lopatin-From Here to Maturity”,
version 1.0, copyright 1985, by Platte River
Associates, Inc. and Douglas W. Waples.
24
Temperatures experienced and residence time at
maximum temperatures.
beneath the COST well are described in
surface geologic mapping onshore. There,
the lower Tolstoi Formation consists of
nonmarine and shallow marine sandstones
and conglomerates with subordinate
siltstone, shale, and coal (Detterman et al.,
1996, p. 38-42). These rocks are much the
same as the part of the Tolstoi Formation
that was penetrated by the COST well (fig.
9). The latter rocks are dominated by coaly,
Type III organic matter and are most
probably sources for gas and wet gas.
Geological mapping (Wilson et al., 1995;
Detterman et al., 1996) documents a
widespread unconformity at the base of the
Tolstoi Formation where it rests upon
Cretaceous rocks in the Port Moller area.
The Tolstoi Formation rocks that overlie this
regional unconformity range in possible age
from middle Eocene to late Paleocene
(Detterman et al., 1996, p. 39-42). The
offshore COST well reached total depth
within lower to middle Eocene rocks (fig.
9). From stratigraphic relations onshore, we
infer that the untested strata beneath the
bottom of the COST well overlie Mesozoic
rocks on a Late Paleocene unconformity.
This unconformity probably marks the onset
of subsidence of the North Aleutian basin
and forms the starting point for the Lopatin
burial model. We model the untested strata
beneath the COST well as Tolstoi-
equivalent rocks that range up to 61 Ma in
age (base of Late Paleocene).
Initial basin subsidence was rift-driven and
was accompanied by large-scale faulting and
the elevation of horsts in the southwest half
of the North Aleutian basin. The rift-driven
phase of basin subsidence was concluded by
the time of seismic horizon “D” (35.4 Ma),
which corresponds to the regional
unconformity that decapitates the basement
horsts in the southwest half of the North
Aleutian basin (fig. 6).
32
The later phase of basin subsidence was
mostly unaccompanied by faulting, with
some reactivation of horst-bounding faults.
This phase of subsidence was more
regionally extensive than the rift phase and
may have been both thermally-driven
(cooling following the rift phase) and load-
driven (as a foredeep bending downward to
the south beneath tectonically-thickened
crust on the south margin of the basin [Bond
et al., 1988]).
In figure 30, the rocks at the bottom of the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well are
shown to enter the early oil generation zone
(TTI>3) at about 31.7 Ma. The base of the
well entered the peak oil generation zone
(TTI>10) at 27.0 Ma.
The thermal maturation of the basin floor
strata beneath the bottom of the COST well
represents the earliest opportunity for
generation of petroleum in the North
Aleutian basin. This deeper package of
strata would have entered the early oil
generation window (TTI>3) as early as 38.5
Ma and the peak oil generation zone
(TTI>10) at 34.4 Ma. Oil and gas
generation from shallower strata with
appropriate organic compositions has
presumably taken place with progressive
burial since 38.5 Ma, continuing to the
present time.
The erosionally–truncated crests of the
basement horsts were buried beneath the
thick shaly sequence of the lower part of the
Stepovak Formation (lower contact, seismic
horizon “D”) at approximately 35.4 Ma,
thereby sealing the deeper traps on horst
flanks. The underlying strata that onlap the
faulted flanks of the horsts were deposited
between 61 Ma and 35.4 Ma, mostly before
the earliest onset of hypothetical oil
generation from basin floor strata at 38.5
Ma. Traps associated with faults and
stratigraphic onlap on the flanks of these
basement horsts were mostly available to
capture petroleum generated in flanking
basin deeps after 38.5 Ma.
Deposition of the principal reservoir—the
Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence—began
about 28.5 Ma and continued up to about 4.5
Ma. The compaction-driven doming of
drape anticlines over basement horsts
continued through the time interval of Bear
Lake-Stepovak deposition, as indicated by
the thickening of strata into the grabens
flanking horsts (illustrated in fig. 6 and pl.
1).
Oil and gas generated between 28.5 and 38.5
Ma preceded the formation of the drape
anticlines in the Bear Lake-Stepovak
sequence over basement horsts. Some early-
formed generation products may have
preceded drape anticline formation and
escaped to the surface unless sequestered in
older traps along horst flanks. But, the early
fraction of the total generated product may
have been relatively small. Sometime
between 21.2 Ma (vitrinite reflectance
data 25 ) and 27.0 Ma (Lopatin model), basin-
floor strata reached peak oil generation
(Ro=1.00%; TTI=75), corresponding to the
stage when petroleum is most abundantly
created (Dow, 1977a, fig. 3; Baskin, 1997,
tbl. 1). At this time, the lower part of the
Bear Lake-Stepovak sequence and
25
In figure 30 a dashed black line for the Ro=1.00%
isograd has been added and is shown intersecting the
basin floor at 21.2 Ma. This isograd is not a product
of the model but was constructed parallel to model-
based TTI isograds and hand-sketched back through
time from the actual well penetration of the 1.00% Ro
isograd based on vitrinite reflectance data. This was
done to obtain an alternative estimate for the time
when basin floor strata achieved peak oil generation
(Ro=1.00%). The Lopatin model forecasts for
thermal maturity below 15,000 ft bkb in the COST
well do not conform with vitrinite reflectance data
and are not considered reliable.
33
associated traps were certainly in place to
capture migrating petroleum. Given
appropriate organic compositions within the
lower part of the North Aleutian basin fill,
the timing of hypothetical petroleum
generation is mostly appropriate for
charging of the Bear Lake-Stepovak
reservoirs in the 28.5-4.5 Ma drape
anticlines over horsts.
The “amorphous” interval in the COST well
(discussed above 26 ), of past interest because
of the presence of putative amorphous (i.e.,
oil prone) kerogens, oil shows, and elevated
gas wetness (pl. 4), corresponds
approximately to the interval from 15,620 ft
bkb (top of fault gap in fig. 30) to total
depth. The top of the “amorphous” interval
entered the early oil generation window
(TTI>3) at 26.4 Ma and entered the peak oil
generation zone (TTI>10) at 20.4 Ma. Any
hydrocarbons generated out of the
“amorphous” interval therefore could have
charged some of the shallow drape anticlines
involving the Bear Lake-Stepovak play
sequence reservoirs over basement horsts.
The timing of hypothetical petroleum
generation is favorable for preservation of
porosity in the principal reservoir, the Bear
Lake-Stepovak play sequence. As noted,
hydrocarbon generation could have begun at
the basin floor sometime between 38.5 Ma
and 34.4 Ma, and ostensibly reached peak
oil generation (Ro=1.00%; TTI=75) between
21.2 and 27.0 Ma (fig. 30). The
hypothetical oil and gas forming near the
basin floor therefore could have invaded the
Bear Lake-Stepovak sandstones shortly after
deposition. Early entry of hydrocarbons into
the pore systems of the Bear Lake-Stepovak
26
The review of source rock geochemical data in this
report discounts the “amorphous” interval as a
potential oil source. It is viewed as a potential
source for gas or wet gas, but is no more promising
than other sequences penetrated by the COST well.
sandstones within traps could have arrested
the diagenetic processes that act to destroy
porosity. We note that the Bear Lake-
Stepovak sandstones in the COST well were
not associated with any oil or gas shows, but
nonetheless preserve excellent porosity and
permeability (figs. 15 and 16).
In contrast, the older Tolstoi play sequence
resided at significant burial depths for up to
22.5 m.y. (61 Ma minus 38.5 Ma=22.5)
before any petroleum could have been
generated out of basin-floor strata. This
protracted opportunity for diagenetic
destruction of pore space 27 may partly
explain the overall poor reservoir quality of
the Tolstoi sandstones below 10,380 ft bkb
in the COST well.
The TTI isograd depths forecast by the
Lopatin model conform reasonably well to
vitrinite reflectance-based isograd depths in
the part of the COST well above 13,000 ft
bkb. Specifically, vitrinite reflectance data
indicate that isograd Ro=0.5% (threshold for
early oil generation) is reached at 10,372 ft
bkb. The Lopatin model forecasts the
equivalent TTI=3 isograd to lie 223 ft
shallower, at 10,213 ft bkb. Vitrinite
reflectance data indicate that isograd
Ro=0.6% (threshold for peak oil generation)
is reached at 12,397 ft bkb. The Lopatin
model forecasts the equivalent TTI=10
isograd to lie 337 ft shallower, at 12,060 ft
bkb. The depths of these isograds are
compared in the right-hand columns of
figure 30.
The isograd depths forecast by the Lopatin
model do not conform to vitrinite
reflectance-based isograd depths in the part
of the COST well below 15,000 ft bkb.
27
Mostly by pore-filling chemical cements, and,
replacement of volcanic clasts by clays leading to
collapse of clasts, as observed in petrographic
microscopy (AGAT, 1983, p.2).
34
Generally, the Lopatin maturity values at a
given depth are higher than the observed
vitrinite-reflectance-based maturity values.
For example, the observed vitrinite
reflectance at modeled well total depth
(17,802 ft bkb, 647 ft added for fault gap 28 )
is 1.097% (fig. 17) and the appropriate
corresponding TTI value is 98 (Waples,
1980, tbl. 4). At the same depth, the Lopatin
model for the COST well overestimates a
TTI value of 576 (equivalent to 1.80% Ro;
Waples, 1980, tbl. 4).
Generally, the model-to-data discrepancies
(between the Lopatin model forecasts for
thermal maturities and vitrinite-reflectance-
based thermal maturities) in the COST well
increase with depth. The Lopatin isograd
TTI=75 is forecast to lie at 15,141 feet bkb.
The isograd TTI=75 normally corresponds
to a vitrinite reflectance of 1.00% or peak-
oil generation (Waples, 1980, tbl. 4), but the
observed vitrinite reflectance at 15,141 ft in
the COST well is only 0.768%. A vitrinite
reflectance of 1.00% is not achieved until a
depth of 17,160 ft, or 2,019 ft deeper than
the Lopatin model forecast (for TTI=75).
Likewise, the oil-generation-floor isograd
TTI=180, forecast at 16,479 ft bkb by the
Lopatin model, is 2,772 ft shallower than the
equivalent vitrinite reflectance isograd
(Ro=1.35%) forecast (below the data set) at
19,251 ft bkb. The large discrepancies
between the depths of Lopatin isograds and
vitrinite reflectance isograds are illustrated
in the right-hand columns of figure 30.
The model-to-data discrepancies below
15,000 ft bkb are too large and result in
erroneously high (early) Lopatin-model
estimates for the onset ages of peak oil
generation (TTI=75), the oil generation floor
28
The base of the well for modeling purposes is
“corrected” or extended down to 17,802 ft bkb to
account for the 647 ft gap at the normal fault
penetrated at 15,620 ft bkb.
(TTI=180), peak wet gas generation
(TTI=92), and the floor for survival of
liquids (TTI=900). The onset ages forecast
by this high-TTI part of the Lopatin model
are only useful as maximum ages. 29
In an effort to construct a Lopatin model that
better conforms to observational data, we
experimented with two variations on the
basic model shown and tabulated in figure
30. For the first variation, we retained the
geothermal model (modern gradients) but
added time gaps at regional unconformities.
For the second variation, we retained the
stratigraphic model (without time gaps) but
reduced the geothermal gradient.
As the first variation to our Lopatin model,
we inserted arbitrary time gaps at the
regional unconformities marked by seismic
horizons A, B, C, and D (3 m.y., 3 m.y., 3
m.y., and 5 m.y., respectively). These time
gaps are arbitrary because the paleontologic
data do not resolve any quantifiable time
gaps at these surfaces in the COST well (fig.
9), nor do we observe erosional truncation
effects at these surfaces in the graben area
near the well. The addition of these time
gaps (hiatuses) to the basic stratigraphic
model produced the general effect of
moving TTI isograds to even shallower
depths. Therefore, adding time gaps to the
stratigraphic model increased the
discrepancies between Lopatin model
forecasts and vitrinite reflectance data from
the well. This first variation on the Lopatin
model degraded model-to-data conformance
and was discarded.
29
The principal product generated in the high-TTI
part of the Lopatin burial model is gas. Actual gas-
generation thresholds were probably achieved much
more recently than the times indicated by the Lopatin
burial model in figure 30. Because gas is more likely
to breach trap seals with time, a late (i.e., very
recent) gas-charge charge history is probably helpful
to overall trap success.
35
As the second variation on our Lopatin
model, we used the basic stratigraphic
model of figure 30 but reduced the
geothermal gradient for the entire well to
14.0ºF/1,000 ft, held constant through time.
As shown in plate 4 and figure 30, the
COST well temperature data describe a
three-leg set of gradients ranging from
16.7ºF to 18.3ºF per 1,000 ft. The
substitution of a lower geothermal gradient
of 14.0ºF/1,000 ft produced better model-to-
data conformance for TTI values of 75 and
higher, but substantially decreased the
model-to-data conformance for the critical
oil-generation-onset TTI isograds less than
75. This second variation on the Lopatin
model was also discarded.
The results of the second variation on our
Lopatin model suggest that a better fit might
be achieved by assuming a low geothermal
gradient for the deeper (and older) part of
the well and a high geothermal gradient (like
that observed) in the shallow part of the
well. This would retain the good model-to-
data conformance in the shallow part of the
well and move TTI isograds to greater
depths (and better conformance to data) in
the deep parts of the well. In fact, some
experimentation revealed that an early (pre-
seismic horizon “D”) geothermal gradient of
10ºF/1,000 ft could produce reasonably
good model-to-data conformance in the deep
part of the well. However, this (10ºF/1,000
ft) is an extremely low geothermal
gradient. 30 Even more troubling, this two-
part geothermal model implies that the early
history of the North Aleutian basin was
characterized by a relatively low geothermal
gradient that was later replaced by the
higher gradients observed today. This is the
opposite of what we might expect
30
Cook Inlet basin, a relatively “cold” forearc basin,
has geothermal gradients ranging from 12ºF to 16ºF
per 1,000 ft depending on proximity to the modern
volcanic arc (Magoon, 1986, fig. 20, p.45).
considering the early rift history of the
North Aleutian basin. Rifting is usually
accompanied by elevated geothermal
gradients (Dewey and Bird, 1970; Falvey,
1974; McKenzie, 1978; White and
McKenzie, 1988; Bond and Kominz, 1988),
above the “world average” of 13.7ºF/1,000
ft (25ºC/km) and ranging up to 42ºF/1,000
ft (77ºC/km or higher) (Lee and Uyeda,
1965; Tissot and Welte, 1984, p. 296). At
the conclusion of rifting, the crust cools and
subsides, producing a shift to a lower
geothermal gradient. To invoke an
uncommonly low geothermal gradient
during a rift event, followed by warming and
a higher geothermal gradient, contradicts
generally-accepted tectonic-thermal models
for rift basins.
In the end, we were unable to devise a
Lopatin model for the COST well that uses
available geothermal and stratigraphic data,
that produces a good fit at all depths to the
observational data, and that is rational in the
tectonic context of the well.
Despite the flaws in the high-TTI Lopatin
model forecasts, the model did produce low-
TTI forecasts that are vindicated by vitrinite
reflectance data in the shallower parts of the
COST well. Therefore, we believe that the
Lopatin model of figure 30 provides useful
insights into the timing of the earliest phases
of thermal maturation and potential
hydrocarbon generation in the area of the
36
COST well. And here, amid the most
important prospects in the North Aleutian
basin, the Lopatin model indicates that,
given appropriate organic compositions,
hydrocarbon generation deep in the basin
could have preceded and accompanied the
formation of key reservoirs and traps,.
Vitrinite reflectance data and Lopatin
modeling both indicate that about 10,500 ft
of strata in the lower part of the North
Aleutian basin are within or have passed
through the oil generation window
(Ro=0.5% to 1.35%). Significant quantities
of gas may also have been generated out of
the coaly, Type III organic matter as the host
strata passed through the thermal maturity
window for oil generation (Boreham and
Powell, 1993, p. 149-150). Vitrinite
reflectance data indicate that over 5,100 ft of
strata have passed into the wet gas
generation window for mixed kerogens
(Ro>0.8%). Vitrinite reflectance data
indicate that over 3,300 ft of strata in the
lower part of the basin have passed into the
thermal maturity window for generation of
dry gas from coaly/Type III organic matter
(Ro>1.07%). Clearly, a large volume of
rocks have experienced thermal exposures
sufficient for significant petroleum
generation in the lower part of the basin.
The Lopatin model shows that the most
attractive reservoirs and traps existed and
were available to capture oil and gas at the
time of most prolific oil and gas generation.
 Petroleum System Elements and Oil and Gas Plays in North Aleutian Basin
OCS Planning Area
Key Elements of Petroleum System
The major elements of the petroleum
systems hypothesized for the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area are illustrated in a
schematic cross section in figure 31a. For
the main part of the North Aleutian basin,
traps are hypothesized to be charged by gas,
condensate, and oil originating from deeply
buried, gas-prone source rocks of Tertiary
age. For the southwest part of the Planning
Area, which is underlain by possibly oil-
prone Mesozoic rocks, traps in Mesozoic
sandstones are hypothesized to be charged
by original oil migration from Mesozoic oil
source rocks. Traps in Tertiary sandstones
overlying oil-prone Mesozoic rocks are
hypothesized to be charged by re-migration
of oil out of disrupted Mesozoic reservoirs.
The hypothetical petroleum system
responsible for the majority of potential
undiscovered oil and gas resources in the
Planning Area is illustrated on the right side
of figure 31a. Sandstone reservoirs (Bear
Lake-Stepovak play sequence) within the
domes draped over basement uplifts are
charged by petroleum generated in Tertiary
rocks (Tolstoi play sequence) deeply buried
in grabens flanking the uplifts. A regional
shale seal (lower part of Stepovak Fm.; fig.
10 and pl. 3) floors the Bear Lake-Stepovak
reservoir sequence and is pierced by horst-
bounding faults that extend upward into the
shallow level of the basin fill above seismic
horizon “D”. These faults may provide the
critical pathways for petroleum migration
between the deep oil and gas generation
centers (“GAS/COND KITCHEN” in fig.
31a) flanking basement uplifts and the
shallow traps that overlie the uplifts. Gas
and oil migrating out of Tertiary rocks in the
37
deep grabens may also fill Tolstoi reservoir
sandstones in traps ringing the faulted flanks
of basement uplifts.
The hypothetical petroleum system
responsible for a minority fraction of
undiscovered oil resources in the Planning
Area is illustrated on the left side of figure
31a. Mesozoic rocks beneath the Black
Hills uplift reached thermal maturity
sufficient for oil generation prior to Eocene
time and may contain oil pools that formed
in Mesozoic (probably Cretaceous?) time.
Cenozoic-age faulting may have disrupted
some of these oil pools and provided
avenues for re-migration into traps in
overlying Oligocene-Miocene reservoir
sandstones of the Bear Lake-Stepovak play
sequence. Traps in Tertiary reservoirs on
the Black Hills uplift may also be charged
by gas and condensate migrating out of
deeply buried Tertiary strata in North
Aleutian basin. However, this would
requires 50+ miles of lateral migration
through the highly faulted southwest part of
the North Aleutian basin, with great risk of
diversion of migrating petroleum up faults
and loss to surface seeps.
Play Definition
Plays were separated first on the basis of
reservoir characteristics, for which the
stratigraphic sequence serves as proxy.
Further separations were made on the basis
of structural setting and hydrocarbon charge
models (source type [oil vs. gas] and access
[length and integrity of migration path]).
The Bear Lake-Stepovak sequence was
defined so as to capture the main reservoir
package between seismic horizons “A” and
“C” (fig. 9 and pl. 2), which is characterized
by abundant, thick, porous, and permeable
sandstones. The Bear Lake-Stepovak
sequence is draped over basement uplifts in
the southwest part of the North Aleutian
basin and forms the key exploration play in
the basin. The Bear Lake-Stepovak play
sequence can be traced to the Black Hills
uplift, where it is also draped over basement
uplifts. But the Black Hills uplift is treated
as a separate play because it has access to
hypothetical oil-prone sources in the
underlying Mesozoic assemblage. The
Black Hills uplift has limited access (large
distances across highly faulted areas) to the
deeply buried gas-prone Tertiary age
sources that are hypothesized to charge the
main Bear Lake-Stepovak play. The Tolstoi
play sequence hosts poor-quality reservoir
sandstones (thin and impermeable) and is
involved in flank traps against basement
uplifts. The Tolstoi sequence is thus set
apart into a third play.
A fourth play identifies low-pressure
biogenic gas resources in shallow Plio-
Pleistocene strata of glacial and marine
origins.
The substrate of Mesozoic rocks beneath the
North Aleutian basin in divided into a
southern province of deformed sedimentary
rocks (play 5) and a northern province of
volcano-plutonic rocks (play 6). The
Mesozoic deformed sedimentary rocks on
the south include rocks correlative to
regional oil sources and are primarily an oil
play. The volcano-plutonic Mesozoic
assemblage on the north forms the cores of
basement uplifts and if properly fractured,
might form a reservoir for hydrocarbons.
The schematic structural cross section in
figure 31b illustrates the organization of the
six plays and associated trap types. The 6
plays are described in detail below.
Play Descriptions, North Aleutian Basin,
Alaska
Play 1: Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-
Miocene)
Play Area: 14,820 square miles
Play Water Depth Range: 15-300 feet
Play Depth Range: 2,000-10,000 feet
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.25%-0.48% vitrinite
reflectance
Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
Recoverable Resources:
271 Mmb (oil) + 136 Mmb (gas-condensate) = 406
Mmb liquids (rounding sums to 406)
5.473 Tcf (gas) + 0.113 Tcf (solution gas) = 5.586
Tcf gas
Pool Rank 1 Mean Conditional Resource: 827
Mmboe (4.65 Tcfge)
Play Exploration Chance: 0.1872
Play 1, the “Bear Lake-Stepovak” play, is
the dominant play in the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area, with 61% (1,400
Mmboe) of the Planning Area energy
endowment (2,287 Mmboe). Oil and gas-
condensate liquids form 29% of the
hydrocarbon energy endowment of play 1.
The Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence
corresponds in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well to the lower part of the Milky
River Formation, all of the Bear Lake
Formation, and the upper (sandy) part of the
Stepovak Formation. The play sequence
ranges in age from late Oligocene through
early Pliocene (fig. 9 and pl. 2). In onshore
areas, rocks correlative to play 1 were
penetrated by 9 wells (David River 1/1A,
Hoodoo Lake 1, Hoodoo Lake 2, Sandy
River 1, Port Heiden 1, Ugashik 1, Becharof
Lake 1, Great Basins 1, and Great Basins 2
wells). Offshore, in eastern St. George
basin, correlative rocks were penetrated by
the St. George Basin COST 2, Monkshood
1, and Bertha 1 wells. The principal point of
offshore control is the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 stratigraphic information test well

38
that was drilled by an industry consortium in
1983. The area of play 1 is shown in figure
32.
No pools of oil or gas were encountered in
any wells penetrating the Bear Lake-
Stepovak sequence in the North Aleutian
basin. Minor gas shows are associated with
coals in the Bear Lake-Stepovak sequence in
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well and
in most wells onshore. In the Becharof Lake
1 well, cuttings headspace gas carbon
isotopes (AOGCC, 1985) for the Bear Lake
and Stepovak Formations range from -19.5
to -65.4 (δ13C [PDB]), indicating mixed
thermogenic and biogenic gas (fig. 24). No
shows of oil were noted within the Bear
Lake-Stepovak play sequence in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. Oil shows
were noted in the play sequence in the
Becharof Lake 1, Sandy River 1, and David
River 1/1A wells. Flow tests in the Bear
Lake-Stepovak sequence in the Sandy River
1 well recovered gas-cut drilling mud and
formation waters.
Most of the oil and gas resources of play 1
are associated with Oligocene- to Miocene-
age sandstones in simple domes draped over
basement uplifts, as illustrated schematically
in figure 31b (and in the seismic panel in fig.
6 and pl. 1). Mapped domes range up to
93,000 acres in closure areas. Thick
(maximum = 277 ft), highly porous reservoir
sandstones sum to 3,305 feet in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well—comprising
61 percent of the 5,390 ft-thick Bear Lake-
Stepovak play sequence (figs. 11-16). No
oil source formation has been identified in
the North Aleutian basin but coals and
shales with Type III (coal-like) organic
matter are abundant and could form sources
for both biogenic and thermogenic gas,
condensate, and perhaps minor oil (fig. 21).
For this reason, play 1 is modeled as gas-
prone. Oil shows were encountered in the
39
interval from 15,300 to 16,800 feet
(corresponds to 0.78% to 1.04% Ro) in the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. Carbon
isotopes on extracts from the show interval
correlate to extracts and oils from Tertiary-
age rocks in northern Cook Inlet as opposed
to extracts and oils from known Mesozoic-
age oil source rocks on the Alaska Peninsula
and beneath Cook Inlet (fig. 27). These data
suggest that Mesozoic oil source beds do not
underlie North Aleutian basin in the area of
play 1. This interpretation is supported by
magnetic intensity data (fig. 7) that suggest
that play 1 is underlain by a substrate of
Mesozoic volcano-plutonic rocks. The
hypothesized petroleum system for play 1
assumes that gas and minor liquids migrate
out of Tertiary rocks in the deep parts of
North Aleutian basin and rise along faults
bounding basement uplifts to charge shallow
reservoir beds draped over uplifts.
Three major risk factors for play 1 relate to:
1) seal (reservoir sequence is very sand-rich
and is not capped by a regional seal); 2)
source adequacy (no attractive source
formation in known Tertiary-age rocks;
Mesozoic rocks beneath play 1 are
pervasively invaded by plutons and cannot
form a source for petroleum); and 3)
petroleum migration to reservoirs (a
major seal sequence—bentonitic shales of
the lower Stepovak Formation—floors the
reservoir sequence and is only sparsely
pierced by faults).
Play 2: Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene)
Play Area: 10,890 square miles
Play Water Depth Range: 15-300 feet
Play Depth Range: 4,000-20,000 feet
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.3%-1.65% vitrinite
reflectance
Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
Recoverable Resources:
62 Mmb (oil) + 61 Mmb (gas-condensate) =
 123 Mmb liquids
2.476 Tcf (gas) + 0.025 Tcf (solution gas) =
2.501 Tcf gas
Pool Rank 1 Mean Conditional Resource: 208
Mmboe (1.17 Tcfge)
Play Exploration Chance: 0.1404
Play 2, the “Tolstoi” play, is the second
most important play in the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area, with 25% (568
Mmboe) of the Planning Area energy
endowment (2,287 Mmboe). Oil and gas-
condensate liquids form 22 percent of the
hydrocarbon energy endowment of play 2.
The Tolstoi play sequence corresponds in
the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well to the
lower part of the Stepovak Formation and
the entire Tolstoi Formation. The play
sequence ranges in age from early Eocene to
early Oligocene (fig. 9 and pl. 2). In
onshore areas, rocks correlative to play 2
were penetrated by 5 wells (Becharof Lake
1, Great Basins 1, Great Basins 2, Hoodoo
Lake 2, and David River 1/1A wells).
Offshore, in eastern St. George Basin,
correlative rocks were penetrated by the St.
George Basin COST 2 well. The North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well is the most
important point of control for the Tolstoi
play sequence in the North Aleutian basin.
The area of play 2 is shown in figure 33.
Gas is pooled in several Tolstoi Formation
intervals in the Becharof Lake 1 well, where
flow tests of separate intervals recovered gas
at rates ranging from 10 to 50 mcfg/d, or a
total of 90 mcfg/d for all three zones. In the
Becharof Lake 1 well, cuttings headspace
gas carbon isotopes (AOGCC, 1985) for the
Tolstoi Formation range from -32.8 to -43.9
(δ13C [PDB]), indicating thermogenic gas
(fig. 24). Gas was recovered in flow tests
from two intervals in the Tolstoi Formation
at rates of 5 to 10 Mcfgpd (with 300-400
bwpd) in the David River 1/1A well. Gas
shows were associated with Tolstoi
40
Formation coals in the North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 well as well as in the 5 Tolstoi
penetrations onshore. Oil shows were noted
in the Tolstoi Formation in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1, Becharof Lake 1,
Hoodoo Lake 2, and David River 1/1A
wells).
Most of the oil and gas resources of play 2
are associated with simple anticlines draped
over basement uplifts, or, in truncation traps
(against faults and unconformities) on the
flanks of basement uplifts, as illustrated in
figure 31. Mapped traps range up to 53,000
acres in closure area. The upper part of the
Tolstoi play sequence (lower part of
Stepovak Formation) passes over the crests
of basement uplifts. In the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well, the upper part of the
Tolstoi play sequence contains porous and
permeable sandstones that are sparse (236
feet net, or 10% of interval) and thin
(maximum = 43 feet) (figs. 11-16). A
regional shale seal in the lower part of the
Stepovak Formation is prominent within the
upper part of the Tolstoi play sequence (fig.
9 and pl. 2). The lower part of the Tolstoi
play sequence is involved in fault- and
stratigraphic-truncation traps on the flanks
of basement uplifts. Sandstones are
abundant in the lower Tolstoi play sequence
(1,910 feet net, 30% of sequence) in the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, but are
thin-bedded (maximum = 57 feet) and
impermeable (diagenesis of volcanic
particles has resulted in collapse of
framework grains; 84% of core samples
have <10 md permeability) (figs. 11-16).
No oil source rock formation has been
identified in the North Aleutian basin but
coals and shales with Type III (coal-like)
organic matter are abundant and could form
sources for both biogenic and thermogenic
gas, condensate, and minor oil (fig. 21). For
this reason, play 2 is modeled as gas-prone.
Oil shows were encountered in the interval
from 15,300 to 16,800 feet (corresponds to
0.78% to 1.04% Ro) in the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well. Carbon isotopes on
extracts from the show interval correlate to
extracts and oils from Tertiary-age rocks in
northern Cook Inlet as opposed to extracts
and oils from Mesozoic-age source rocks on
the Alaska Peninsula and beneath Cook Inlet
(fig. 27). These data suggest that Mesozoic
oil source beds do not underlie North
Aleutian basin in the area of play 2. The
hypothetical petroleum system for play 2
assumes that gas and minor liquids
migrating out of Tertiary rocks in the deep
parts of North Aleutian basin rise along
faults bounding basement uplifts to charge
shallow reservoir beds draped over uplifts or
truncated on uplift flanks.
The major risk factors for play 2 relate to: 1)
reservoir (thin sandstones are porous in the
upper Tolstoi play sequence but are
impermeable in the lower Tolstoi play
sequence); and 2) source adequacy (no
attractive source formation in known
Tertiary-age rocks; Mesozoic rocks beneath
play 2 are pervasively invaded by plutons
and cannot form a source for petroleum).
Play 3: Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin
(Eocene-Miocene)
Play Area: 6,990 square miles
Play Water Depth Range: 15-700 feet
Play Depth Range: 2,000-20,000 feet (mostly 2,000-
5,000 feet)
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.23%-2.00% (mostly
0.23%-0.31%) vitrinite reflectance
Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
Recoverable Resources:
149 Mmb (oil) + 6 Mmb (gas-condensate) = 155
Mmb liquids
0.249 Tcf (gas) + 0.063 Tcf (solution gas) =
0.312 Tcf gas
Pool Rank 1 Mean Conditional Resource: 378
Mmboe (2.12 Tcfge)
Play Exploration Chance: 0.105
41
Play 3, the “Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin”
play, is a subordinate play in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, with
9% (210 Mmboe) of the Planning Area
energy endowment (2,287 Mmboe). Oil and
gas-condensate liquids form 74% of the
energy endowment of play 3.
The Black Hills uplift is a regional arch that
extends west from the Alaska Peninsula to
join the shelf-edge uplift that forms the west
boundary of St. George basin. The Black
Hills uplift is onlapped by the Tertiary-age
sedimentary fill of both the North Aleutian
and Amak basins, but only rocks correlative
to the Bear Lake-Stepovak sequence of play
1 crest the top of the uplift. Over the crest,
the Bear Lake-Stepovak-equivalent
sequence (fig. 9 and pl. 1) ranges up to
5,000 feet thick and directly overlies
moderately deformed Mesozoic sedimentary
rocks. Rocks of the lower part of the
Stepovak Formation and the Tolstoi
Formation are truncated at faults and
unconformities on the north and south flanks
of the uplift. No wells have penetrated the
Tolstoi-equivalent strata in the Amak basin
south of the Black Hills uplift. In onshore
areas, rocks correlative to the Bear Lake-
Stepovak play sequence were penetrated by
9 wells (David River 1/1A, Hoodoo Lake 1,
Hoodoo Lake 2, Sandy River 1, Port Heiden
1, Ugashik 1, Becharof Lake 1, Great Basins
1, and Great Basins 2 wells). Offshore,
correlative rocks were penetrated at the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (North
Aleutian basin) and at the St. George Basin
COST 2, Monkshood 1, and Bertha 1 wells
(St. George basin). The closest point of
offshore control is the Bertha 1 well, located
on the crest of the Black Hills uplift. The
Bear Lake-Stepovak-equivalent sequence at
the Bertha 1 well is mostly marine and non-
coal-bearing, and is a more distal facies than
the correlative coal-bearing (nonmarine to
inner neritic; fig. 9 and pl. 2) sequences
penetrated onshore and at the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well. The area of play 3 is
shown in figure 34.
No pools of oil or gas have been discovered
in the Bear Lake-Stepovak play sequence or
correlative rocks of plays 1 and 3. Gas
shows are widely associated with coals in
the Bear Lake and Stepovak Formations and
oil shows have been noted in these
formations in 3 wells onshore (Becharof
Lake 1, Sandy River 1, and David River
1/1A wells). Flow tests recovered gas from
the Tolstoi Formation in the Becharof Lake
1 well and oil shows were noted in 4 Tolstoi
penetrations (North Aleutian Shelf COST 1,
Becharof Lake 1, Hoodoo Lake 2, and
David River 1/1A wells). No oil or gas
shows are associated with the Bear Lake-
Stepovak sequence in the Bertha 1 well,
located on the Black Hills uplift near the
west boundary of play 3.
Most of the oil and gas resources of play 3
are associated with broad, low-amplitude
anticlines draped over culminations on the
Black Hills uplift, as illustrated in figure 31.
Mapped traps have closure areas ranging up
to 133,000 acres. Thick (maximum = 220
feet), highly porous, and plentiful (sum to
1,706 feet net, or 59% of sequence)
reservoir sandstones are present in the Bear
Lake-Stepovak-equivalent sequence in the
Bertha 1 well. No regional seal caps the
abundant sandstones in the Bear Lake-
Stepovak-equivalent sequence at the Bertha
1 well.
No oil source rocks have been identified in
the Tertiary sedimentary fill of either the
North Aleutian or Amak basins. In the
North Aleutian basin (and presumably the
Amak basin), coals and shales with Type III
(coal-like) organic matter are abundant and
could form sources for both biogenic and
42
thermogenic gas, condensate, and minor oil.
In the southwest part of the North Aleutian
basin, thousands of feet of Tertiary rocks are
thermally mature and could generate oil and
gas, given appropriate organic compositions
(fig. 19). However, the Amak basin fill
reaches a maximum thickness of only
12,500 feet. The depth to the 0.6% vitrinite
reflectance isograd at the North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well is 12,312 feet subsea
(figs. 9 and 17). If the depth for this isograd
at the COST well is extrapolated to Amak
basin, only about 200 feet of rocks at the
floor of the Amak basin are forecast to be
thermally mature and capable of generating
petroleum (figs. 18 and 19). It is therefore
unlikely that Amak basin forms a source for
significant quantities of petroleum. In any
case, gas and condensate generated in the
deep parts of either Amak or North Aleutian
basins must migrate laterally tens of miles
through areas highly dissected by very
young strike-slip faults (that follow the
margins of the Black Hills uplift). Because
of the risks of losses through long-distance
lateral migration and diversion at faults, it is
unlikely that significant quantities of gas and
condensate generated in the Amak or North
Aleutian basins would reach traps on the
Black Hills uplift.
The Black Hills uplift is underlain by an
assemblage of folded Mesozoic sedimentary
rocks that include strata age-equivalent to
known regional oil source beds of Middle
Jurassic (Kialagvik Fm. or Tuxedni Gp.) and
Late Triassic (Kamishak Fm.) ages. The
Middle Jurassic Tuxedni Group is the source
for 1.6 billion barrels of original oil reserves
in northern Cook Inlet (AKDO&G, 2002),
most of which is pooled in Tertiary-age
rocks that overlie the Tuxedni Group. The
Tuxedni-correlative sequence—the
Kialagvik Formation—is present in the
Cathedral River 1 well onshore and
equivocal geochemical anomalies may
suggest a past role as an oil source (fig. 20). Play 4: Milky River Biogenic Gas (Plio-
In the Cathedral River 1 well, oil shows Pleistocene)
were widely observed in the rocks overlying
the Kialagvik Formation. The Kialagvik Play Area: 50,710 square miles
Formation is thermally overmature (TAI = Play Water Depth Range: 15-700 feet
Play Depth Range: 500-3,000 feet
3.0 to 3.8) and post oil-generative in the Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.20%-0.26% vitrinite
Cathedral River 1 well (fig. 20). It is reflectance
probable that Mesozoic oil sources in this Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
area generated and expelled the oil in a past Recoverable Resources:
(pre-Tertiary) cycle of deep burial, long Biogenic gas in negligible recoverable quantities
Play Exploration Chance: 0.000
before the deposition of the Tertiary-age
rocks flanking or overlapping the Black
Play 4, the “Milky River Biogenic Gas”
Hills arch. Oil-charging of the Tertiary-age
play, is the most extensive yet least
rocks in play 3 must therefore rely upon
prospective play in the North Aleutian Basin
capturing oil remobilized out of Mesozoic
OCS Planning Area. Play 4 probably
reservoirs where it was sequestered perhaps
contains sizable in-place quantities of
30 million years earlier during Mesozoic
biogenic gas simply because of the vast area
(Late Cretaceous?) burial and oil generation.
embraced by the play. However, very little
The hypothetical Mesozoic oil pools within
of this gas is likely to be recoverable by
the Black Hills uplift must first survive
conventional means, and the technically
uplift, deep erosion, and re-burial beneath
recoverable resource endowment is assessed
Oligocene and younger strata. The
as negligible.
Mesozoic oil pools must remain intact
during creation of the drape anticlines in
The Milky River play sequence corresponds
Tertiary rocks over culminations on the
in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well to
Black Hills uplift. Once the drape anticlines
the upper part of the Milky River Formation
had formed, fault disruption of the Mesozoic
and overlying, unnamed Quaternary
pools must then trigger the release of the oil
deposits. The play sequence ranges in age
sequestered in Mesozoic reservoirs. The
from early Pliocene to Holocene (fig. 9 and
released oil then migrates upward in some
pl. 2). In onshore areas, rocks correlative to
(necessarily) focused or non-dispersive
play 4 were penetrated by 9 wells (David
pattern en route to Tertiary-age reservoir
River 1/1A, Hoodoo Lake 1, Hoodoo Lake
sandstones in the drape anticlines. The
2, Sandy River 1, Port Heiden 1, Ugashik 1,
charge model for play 3 prospects is
Becharof Lake 1, Great Basins 1, and Great
dependent upon a long chain of critical
Basins 2 wells). Offshore, in eastern St.
events and therefore seems likely to fail.
George basin, correlative rocks were
penetrated by the St. George Basin COST 2,
Two major risk factors for play 3 relate to:
Monkshood 1, and Bertha 1 wells. The
1) migration (must re-migrate oil from
principal point of offshore control is the
underlying disrupted Mesozoic pools or gas
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well that was
from distant generation centers in North
drilled by an industry consortium in 1983.
Aleutian or Amak basins, crossing numerous
The area of play 4 is shown in figure 35.
young faults); and 2) seal (the reservoir
sequence over the crest of the Black Hills
No pools of oil or gas were encountered in
uplift is very sand-rich and is not capped by
any wells penetrating the Milky River play
a regional seal).
sequence in the North Aleutian basin.

43
Minor biogenic gas shows are associated
with the Milky River sequence in the North
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (Robertson
Research, 1983, p. 1), several wells onshore,
and in the Bertha 1 well in the St. George
basin. In the Becharof Lake 1 well, cuttings
headspace gas carbon isotopes (AOGCC,
1985) for the Milky River Formation range
from -67.9 to -80.2 (δ13C [PDB]), clearly
indicating gas of largely biogenic origin (fig.
24). Biogenic gas is primarily a product of
bacterial fermentation of the organic matter
buried within sediments (Hunt, 1979, p.
154).
In offshore areas, biogenic gas may be
pooled in features emplaced by large alpine
glaciers that invaded Bristol Bay from the
south (Alaska Peninsula) and northeast
(Alaska Range) during the Pleistocene
epoch and then retreated during the last
10,000 years. The legacy of glaciation may
include drumlins, eskers, and recessional
moraines. These elevated landforms are
gravelly, porous features that were later
drowned in rising sea waters and are now
draped and perhaps sealed by
unconsolidated pelagic mud. Such features
might pool biogenic gas, at least in southern
parts of North Aleutian basin. Thick shelfal
sandstone sequences of Pliocene age,
presumably representing large-scale current-
molded bedforms, also form candidates for
stratigraphic traps for biogenic gas, as
illustrated in figure 31. Pools of biogenic
gas in play 4 would be characterized by very
low pressure (no more than 1,300 psi) and
would not yield significant fractions of the
in-place gas to conventional development
wells. The biogenic gas may occur in low
saturations or be dissolved in formation
waters. In either case, gas production might
be accompanied by abundant formation
water, a typical experience in biogenic gas
production (Hunt, 1979, p. 155; Shurr and
Ridgley, 2002).
44
We note that most Cook Inlet gas fields are
largely of biogenic origin with basin-wide
original recoverable gas reserves of 8.6 Tcf
(AKDO&G, 2002). Cook Inlet clearly
offers a successful example of a commercial
biogenic gas province. However, the Cook
Inlet gas fields occur in fold structures
(often overlying oil fields) that gathered the
gas from surrounding extensive areas of gas
biogenesis. Cook Inlet gas field reference
depths range from 1,935 feet to 10,000 feet
(average, 5,790 feet) and are normally-
pressured to over-pressured (AOGCC,
2001). The Cook Inlet gas field sandstone
reservoirs (Miocene and Pliocene) are
overlain by compacted shales that form
competent seals. The Cook Inlet gas fields,
though filled with biogenic gas, do not
provide a useful analog for play 4. Because
of similarities in trap type, burial depths, and
reservoir and seal lithologies, the Cook Inlet
biogenic gas fields are most analogous to the
drape-anticline prospects of North Aleutian
basin plays 1 and 2, which range in depth
from 2,500 to 10,000 ft. However, the
latter are expected to be charged with mostly
thermogenic gas and condensate.
Areas of significant risk to play 4 include: 1)
gas recoverability (low reservoir pressure
and high formation water production); 2)
poor seal (poor integrity of the
unconsolidated pelagic mud that may seal
glacial features); 3) reservoir (poor
reservoir continuity); and 4) charge (lack of
aquifer structure that would concentrate and
convey biogenic gas to stratigraphic traps).
Play 4 is assessed to have an exploration
chance of zero and negligible undiscovered
technically recoverable oil and gas
resources.
Play 5: Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary
Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous)
Play Area: 5,040 square miles
Play Water Depth Range: 15-700 feet
Play Depth Range: 2,000-15,000 feet
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.60%-1.30% vitrinite
reflectance
Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
Recoverable Resources:
38 Mmb (oil) + 0 Mmb (gas-condensate) = 38
Mmb liquids
0.000 Tcf (gas) + 0.017 Tcf (solution gas) =
0.017 Tcf gas
Pool Rank 1 Mean Conditional Resource: 63 Mmboe
Play Exploration Chance: 0.09216
Play 5, the “Mesozoic Deformed
Sedimentary Rocks” play, contributes a
mere 1.8% (41 Mmboe) of the energy
endowment (2,287 Mmboe) of the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area. Oil
forms 93% of the energy endowment of play
5.
Folded and thrust-faulted Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks are widely exposed on the
south side of the Alaska Peninsula (figs. 5,
8). Exploration drilling on the Alaska
Peninsula began in 1903 with drilling on oil
seeps along the axes of anticlines near the
east end of Becharof Lake (fig. 5). Oil seep
drilling continued through 1940 and
ultimately 10 wells were drilled (tbl. 1).
Five modern (1961-1981) wells (Canoe Bay
1, Big River 1, Koniag 1, Painter Creek 1,
and Wide Bay 1) also tested exposed fold
structures along the south flank of the
Alaska Peninsula (Molenaar, 1996b, tbl. 1).
On the north flank of the Alaska Peninsula
and along the southern edge of North
Aleutian basin, Mesozoic sedimentary rocks
were penetrated by 3 wells (Cathedral River
1, David River 1/1A, and Hoodoo Lake 2
wells). To the west, five wells in St. George
basin (St. George COST 2, Rat 1, Segula 1,
Tustamena 1 [Y-0530], and Tustamena 2
[Y-0527] wells) reached total depth in
Jurassic rocks. The North Aleutian Shelf
45
COST 1 well did not penetrate Mesozoic
rocks (fig. 9 and pl. 2). The principal point
of well information for the Mesozoic rocks
of play 5 is the Cathedral River 1 well atop
the onshore extension of the Black Hills
uplift. The Cathedral River 1 well
penetrated a relatively complete Mesozoic
sequence 13,911 feet thick and ranging in
age from Late Triassic (Kamishak Fm.) to
Late Jurassic (Naknek Fm.) (fig. 20). The
area of play 5 is shown in figure 36.
No significant pools of oil or gas were
encountered in any of the wells testing
Mesozoic rocks on the Alaska Peninsula or
in St. George basin. The Humble Bear
Creek 1 well near Becharof Lake (fig. 2)
recovered 450 Mcf/d of gas and large
amounts (5,800 feet in drill pipe) of salt
water (AOGCC, 1959) from a 120-foot
interval of the uppermost part of the
Talkeetna Formation (Detterman, 1990).
Elsewhere, several wells encountered sparse
oil and gas shows in Mesozoic rocks
correlative to the play 5 sequence. Oil
shows generally consist of white to yellow
sample fluorescence and weak to streaming
white, blue, or yellow cut fluorescence from
isolated pores or fractures in impermeable
sandstones and siltstones. In the Cathedral
River 1 well, oil shows were encountered as
shallow as 390 feet and were commonly
observed down to 7,500 feet. At 7,500 feet,
a petroleum-based mud additive (Soltex©)
was introduced to the drilling mud, casting
suspicion on the authenticity of the
widespread hydrocarbon shows observed at
greater depths. Flow tests in the Shelikof
and Kialagvik Formations (Middle Jurassic)
and the Talkeetna Formation (Lower
Jurassic) in the Cathedral River 1 well
recovered gassy drilling mud with traces of
oil. In northern Cook Inlet, some oil
production (<300,000 barrels) has occurred
from fractured Talkeetna Formation beneath
the principal accumulation (in Tertiary
rocks) in the McArthur River field
(AOGCC, 2001, p. 171).
Across the eastern Alaska Peninsula and
western Alaska Range, the Bruin Bay fault
forms the contact between a Mesozoic
volcano-plutonic arc terrane on the north
and a Mesozoic sedimentary basin on the
south. The Bruin Bay fault is extrapolated
offshore beneath the North Aleutian basin as
the boundary between a northern area of
high-frequency, high-amplitude magnetic
anomalies and a southern area of low-
frequency, low-amplitude magnetic
anomalies (fig. 7). We speculate that the
magnetic anomaly field north of the
projected Bruin Bay fault corresponds to the
volcano-plutonic arc terrane exposed north
of the Bruin Bay fault onshore. These rocks
were penetrated beneath Tertiary strata in
three wells (Great Basins 1, Great Basins 2,
and Becharof Lake 1 wells) in the northeast
part of North Aleutian basin. The magnetic
anomaly field south of the projected Bruin
Bay fault represents an offshore extension of
the deformed Mesozoic sedimentary rocks
of the Alaska Peninsula, as demonstrated by
penetrations of Mesozoic rocks at several
wells to the west in St. George basin and at
the Cathedral River 1, David River 1/1A,
and Hoodoo Lake 2 wells on the Alaska
Peninsula. The area of play 5 corresponds
to the area of the low-frequency, low-
amplitude magnetic field south of the
offshore extension of the Bruin Bay fault,
and underlies the Amak basin and the Black
Hills uplift (fig. 7).
Most of the oil and gas resources of play 5
are associated with hypothetical pools of oil
captured in anticlines or fault traps like
those exposed on the Alaska Peninsula, as
illustrated in figure 31. We have not
mapped such structures within the Mesozoic
complex offshore, but fold, thrust-fault, and
wrench-fault structures are observed in
46
available seismic data. The surface
anticlines outlined by geologic mapping
near Becharof Lake range from 7,000 to
147,000 acres in gross map area and the
ranges of sizes of these anticlines were used
to model hypothetical prospect areas in play
5. Potential reservoir formations in play 5
include the Lower Jurassic Talkeetna
Formation, the Upper Jurassic Naknek
Formation, the Lower Cretaceous
Staniukovich and Herendeen Formations,
and the Upper Cretaceous Chignik and/or
Hoodoo Formations (stratigraphic column in
fig. 8). In outcrop and well penetrations,
most of these sandstones and conglomerates
are highly zeolitized and preserve negligible
porosity (Franks and Hite, 1980). The
Staniukovich and Naknek Formations
generally have the smallest fractions of
volcaniclastic detritus (Burk, 1965, fig. 10),
and, as the younger (or shallower) reservoir
formations in the Mesozoic assemblage,
have a burial history that is less severe than
that of Middle Jurassic and older units.
The principal resource in play 5 is predicted
to be oil with no accumulations of free gas.
Play 5 was modeled as an oil play because it
is assumed to be charged by Middle Jurassic
oil sources like those that charged the
undersaturated (relative to gas) oil fields of
northern Cook Inlet. Play 5 includes strata
that are age-equivalent to known regional oil
source beds of Middle Jurassic (Kialagvik
Fm. or Tuxedni Gp.) and Late Triassic
(Kamishak Fm.) ages. The Middle Jurassic
Tuxedni Group is the source for 1.6 billion
barrels of original oil reserves in northern
Cook Inlet (AKDO&G, 2002), most of
which are pooled in Tertiary-age rocks that
overlie the Tuxedni Group. The Tuxedni-
correlative sequence on the Alaska
Peninsula—the Kialagvik Formation—is
present in the Cathedral River 1 well
onshore. Geochemical anomalies associated
with the Kialagvik Formation in the
Cathedral River 1 well may suggest a past
role as an oil source (fig. 20). In the
Cathedral River 1 well, oil shows were
widely observed in the rocks overlying the
Kialagvik Formation, which is thermally
overmature (TAI = 3.0 to 3.8) and post oil-
generative (fig. 20). It is probable that
Mesozoic oil sources in this area generated
and expelled the oil in a past (pre-Tertiary)
cycle of deep burial and thermal
transformation of organic matter. The
existence of viable oil accumulations in play
5 requires that the generation of oil out of
these source rocks predate zeolitization of
pore systems in Mesozoic sandstone
reservoirs. Unfortunately, the general case
appears to be that oil generation and
migration followed reservoir zeolitization.
Oil, though commonly observed in
Mesozoic rocks in wells and outcrops, is
only observed in trace quantities in fractures
or in isolated pores that survived
zeolitization.
Four major risk factors for play 5 relate to:
1) reservoir (early zeolitization and porosity
destruction in chemically reactive
volcaniclastic sandstones); 2) timing (oil
generation and migration must occur early
[Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous] to
protect reservoir pore systems, but traps
probably did not form until Late Cretaceous
or early Cenozoic time); 3) trap integrity
(breaching of traps at Miocene and older
Cenozoic unconformities or trap disruption
by faults may have destroyed Mesozoic
petroleum accumulations); and 4)
preservation (exhumation to shallow burial
depths and invasion of meteoric waters may
have promoted biological degradation of oil
in Mesozoic-age accumulations to asphaltic
materials).
47
Play 6: Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills
(Jurassic-Cretaceous Magmatic Rocks)
Play Area: 46,810 square miles
Play Water Depth Range: 15-400 feet
Play Depth Range: 6,000-12,000 feet
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.34%-0.60% vitrinite
reflectance (projected from burial depth but
irrelevant because reservoirs are fractured
plutonic and volcanic rocks)
Risked, Mean, Undiscovered, Technically
Recoverable Resources:
26 Mmb (oil) + 5 Mmb (gas-condensate) = 30
Mmb liquids (rounding sums to 31)
0.195 Tcf (gas) + 0.010 Tcf (solution gas) =
0.206 Tcf gas (rounding sums to 0.205)
Pool Rank 1 Mean Conditional Resource: 148
Mmboe (0.83 Tcfge)
Play Exploration Chance: 0.04095
Play 6, the “Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hill”
play, is a subordinate play in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, with
3% (67 Mmboe) of the Planning Area
energy endowment (2,287 Mmboe). Oil and
gas-condensate liquids form 45% of the
hydrocarbon energy endowment of play 6.
The rocks comprising the Mesozoic Buried
Granitic Hill play correspond to the
Mesozoic plutonic complex exposed in the
Alaska Range to the northeast of the North
Aleutian basin. The latter rocks are the
roots of a volcanic arc system of Jurassic
and Cretaceous age. The volcanic arc
system is long-lived and remains active
today as the chain of large, active volcanoes
along the backbone of the Alaska Peninsula.
The area of play 6 is shown in figure 37.
Jurassic and Cretaceous plutonic rocks are
overlain unconformably by Tertiary strata in
wells in the northeastern parts of the North
Aleutian basin. This plutonic complex was
penetrated by 3 wells (Great Basins 1, Great
Basins 2, and Becharof Lake 1 wells) at
depths ranging from 8,780 to 10,860 feet.
Plutonic rocks (quartz diorite) in the
lowermost 15 ft of the Port Heiden 1 well
have been assigned to the Middle Jurassic
by Detterman (1990), although Brockway et
al. (1975) included these rocks with the
overlying Eocene-Oligocene Meshik
volcanics. Radiometric dating of some of
these plutonic rocks by the K-Ar method
(Geochron, 1969; original reported dates--
not recalculated using modern constants;
Brockway et al., 1975) has yielded ages of
96.3 Ma (Great Basins 2 well), 120 Ma, and
177 Ma (Great Basins 1 well), or, ranging
from mid-Cretaceous to Middle Jurassic in
equivalent stratigraphic age.
No pools of oil or gas were encountered in
any of the well penetrations of the Mesozoic
magmatic arc complex. A gas seep at “Gas
Rocks” along the southwest shore of
Becharof Lake (located in fig. 23 [spl. 149])
is located along the projected trace of the
Bruin Bay fault. This gas seep consists
mostly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
On the eastern Alaska Peninsula and western
Alaska Range, the Bruin Bay fault forms the
contact between a Mesozoic volcano-
plutonic arc terrane on the north and a
Mesozoic sedimentary basin on the south.
The Bruin Bay fault is extrapolated offshore
as the boundary between a northern area of
high-frequency, high-amplitude magnetic
anomalies and a southern area of low-
frequency, low-amplitude magnetic
anomalies (fig. 7). We speculate that the
magnetic anomaly field north of the
projected Bruin Bay fault corresponds to the
volcano-plutonic arc terrane exposed north
of the Bruin Bay fault onshore. These rocks
were penetrated beneath Tertiary strata in
three wells (Great Basins 1, Great Basins 2,
and Becharof Lake 1 wells) in the northeast
part of North Aleutian basin. The magnetic
anomaly field south of the projected Bruin
Bay fault represents an offshore extension of
the deformed Mesozoic sedimentary rocks
of the Alaska Peninsula, as demonstrated by
48
well penetrations of Mesozoic rocks at
several wells to the west in St. George basin
and at the Cathedral River 1, David River
1/1A, and Hoodoo Lake 2 wells on the
Alaska Peninsula. The area of play 6
corresponds to the area of the high-
frequency, high-amplitude magnetic
anomaly field north of the offshore
extension of the Bruin Bay fault. This
magnetic anomaly field is interpreted to
mark a substrate of Mesozoic volcano-
plutonic rocks that underlies the northern
ninety-two percent of the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area.
The Mesozoic basement rocks penetrated at
the Great Basins 1 well are described from
cores as polymictic conglomerates 31 passing
31
The stratigraphic assignment of these
conglomerates in the Great Basins 1 well has been
used to make a case for association with the very
different terranes that lie north and south of the
Bruin Bay fault. Hite (2004, p. 17) has argued that
the assignment of these conglomerates to the Naknek
Formation (after Detterman, 1990) indicates that the
well penetrated the Mesozoic sedimentary (Chignik)
terrane south of the Bruin Bay fault. (Regional
mapping published by Magoon et al [1976] confines
the Upper Jurassic Naknek Formation to the terrane
south of the Bruin Bay fault.) However, the Hite
interpretation also requires that the Bruin Bay fault
curve abruptly westward from the southwest shore of
Becharof Lake so as to pass north of the Great
Basins 1 well. We note that views differ on the
correct assignment for the conglomerates in the
depth interval 10,516-10,850 ft md in the Great
Basins 1 well. Brockway et al. (1975) assigned these
conglomerates to the Oligocene Stepovak Formation
and as such they would have no bearing on the
interpretation of position relative to the terranes
separated by the Bruin Bay fault. The conglomerates
at the Great Basins 1 well pass downward into
granitic gneiss and lamprophyre that, in our view,
are most sensibly associated with the volcano-
plutonic arc (Iliamna) terrane north of the Bruin Bay
fault. Shales interbedded with the conglomerates are
described as “baked” (AOGCC, 1959b, p. 11) and
the deeper granitic rocks have been K-Ar dated at
120 and 177 Ma (Early Cretaceous and earliest
Middle Jurassic, respectively; Geochron, 1969;
Brockway et al., 1975). Contact metamorphism of
downward into granitic gneiss (with large
orthoclase porphyroblasts) and lamprophyre
(rich in dark minerals and transitional to
gabbros). The Great Basins 2 well
penetrated diorite and granite, brecciated
and seamed with calcite veins. The
Mesozoic rocks penetrated at the Becharof
Lake 1 well are described as metamorphic
green schist, meta-gabbro, and meta-diorite,
highly fractured and veined by feldspar and
quartz.
All of the undiscovered potential oil and gas
resources of play 6 are associated with
hypothetical pools lodged in fractured
“granitic” 32 rocks that core basement uplifts
of Tertiary age, as illustrated in figure 31.
These granite-cored uplifts were repeatedly
exposed to weathering and erosion through
early Tertiary (perhaps also Late
Cretaceous) time. We hypothesize that
fractures in the granites provided avenues
for deep invasion by meteoric waters during
times of surface exposure. The meteoric
waters may have enlarged fractures through
dissolution and created a bulk porosity that
was later occupied by petroleum (following
deep reburial). In addition to an abundance
of fractures, fractures must be lengthy and
sufficiently diverse in orientations and depth
of penetration in the granitic body to
establish effective connectivity across pool
areas of thousands of acres. The granite-
cored basement uplifts were eventually (in
Late Eocene time, approx. 40 Ma) sealed
shales interbedded with the conglomerates by Middle
Jurassic intrusives suggests to us that the
conglomerates might more logically be assigned to
the Lower Jurassic Talkeetna Formation, which is
widely mapped and commonly intruded by plutons in
the volcano-plutonic arc (Iliamna) terrane north of
the Bruin Bay fault (Magoon et al., 1976). We
conclude that the conglomerates and magmatic rocks
penetrated below 10,516 ft md in the Great Basins 1
well probably represent the volcano-plutonic terrane
north of the Bruin Bay fault.
32
Here referring to any felsic pluton or massive felsic
volcanic flow.
49
beneath a regional shale within the lower
part of the Stepovak Formation. We
hypothesize that gas and oil arising from
Type III and coaly source rocks of Tertiary
age in deep areas of the North Aleutian
basin that surround the basement uplifts
migrated up the bounding faults and invaded
the fractured and weathered granites at the
crest of the basement uplifts.
Features similar to the North Aleutian basin
buried hills form important exploration
targets in the Bohai (North China) basin
(Guangming and Quanheng, 1982) and
offshore Vietnam (Areshev et al., 1992).
Buried hills form an important play concept
for exploration of the Mesozoic assemblage
in ultra-deep waters of the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico (Post et al., 2001). In the productive
analog from Vietnam, the granitic rocks
range in age from 97 to 178 Ma (mid-
Cretaceous to Middle Jurassic) and feature
bulk porosity values ranging from up to
25.0%. Effective porosity averages between
2.5% and 3.8% and is roughly distributed in
halves as “fracture porosity” and as
“caverns” or “microcaverns”, the latter the
legacy of dissolution of fracture surfaces by
both hydrothermal and meteoric fluids.
Vietnam’s largest field (Bach Ho) is lodged
in a fractured granitic reservoir and produces
approximately 280,000 bbl/day (Brown,
2005, p. 8). Paul Post (pers. comm., August
2003) of the Minerals Management Service
has compiled data on the buried hill oil and
gas fields of China and Vietnam. Pool
volumes can exceed 1 billion barrels of oil
and 2 trillions of cubic feet of gas.
Productive columns can range up to 3,300
feet (P’An, 1982, tbl. 1; O&GJ, 2003).
Initial production rates can exceed 18,000
barrels of oil per day. Oil recovery factors
can range up to 900 bbl/acre-foot (F50 =
158 bbl/acre-foot). The variability in these
fractured reservoirs is such that the upper
parts of the reservoir can be sparsely
fractured while better fracture systems exist
deeper in the buried hill. Many hydrocarbon
accumulations in Vietnam and China (and
elsewhere) may have been missed because
exploration wells stopped drilling as soon as
granitic rocks were encountered in the belief
that it was economic basement and no
hydrocarbons could be housed there (Sladen,
1997). The data compiled and analyzed by
Paul Post for analog features in China and
Vietnam formed the basis for the pay
thickness and oil and gas yields used in the
play 6 resource model (prospect areas are
based on MMS seismic mapping).
Three major risk factors for play 6 relate to:
1) reservoir (requires extensive fractures,
GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT MODEL
The creation of the geologic model used in
the computer simulation for the
undiscovered oil and gas resources of the
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
drew data from MMS seismic mapping,
exploratory wells, producing fields in
analogous reservoirs in the northern Cook
Inlet basin, and published literature.
Tabulations of the geologic input data used
to assess the 6 plays identified in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area are
given in tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Prospect Areas and Volumes
This oil and gas assessment relies upon the
seismic mapping conducted prior to 1988 by
the Alaska (Region) office of the Minerals
Management Service. This mapping
identified 74 prospects in the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area. This mapping
50
enhanced by weathering, and of sufficient
vertical and horizontal lengths and diversity
of orientation to achieve connectivity across
an area of tens of thousands of acres); 2)
adequate source (no attractive source
formation in known Tertiary-age rocks); and
3) migration (hydrocarbons generated in
deep basin areas surrounding basement
uplifts must first migrate vertically up
bounding faults to reach the horsts, but then
must encounter sealing levels on the same
faults that act to divert hydrocarbons into the
crests of uplifts; there is some risk that these
faults will instead allow the hydrocarbons to
escape upwards into overlying Tertiary
sedimentary rocks).
was the basis for construction of probability
distributions for the aerial sizes of prospects
and probability distributions for the numbers
of prospects. These are the most influential
variables within the geologic model used to
compute the undiscovered oil and gas
potential and it is important that they are
grounded in direct information.
Mapped prospects were grouped by play and
the prospect areas (maximum closure within
spill point) were tabulated and entered into
the BESTFIT module within @RISK for
approximation by a log-normal probability
distribution. The closure areas of mapped
prospects in the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area range from 2,600 to 133,000
acres. Independent probability distributions
for prospect areas were created for each
play. These are the distributions reported as
“Prospect Area (acres)-Model Input” in
tables 3 through 8.

The prospect area distribution was then
aggregated (in @RISK) with a probability
distribution for fill fraction (described
below) to obtain the probability distribution
for pool area. The @RISK aggregation
reports back an “as-sampled” prospect area
distribution, which is reported as the
“Prospect Area (acres)-Model Output” in
tables 3 through 8.
The pool area distribution reported from the
@RISK aggregation was then aggregated
with a probability distribution for pay
thickness (described below) in order to
calculate a probability distribution for pool
volume (in acre-feet) in the POOLS module
within GRASP. The pool volume
distribution and the pool numbers
distribution (described below) were then
aggregated to calculate the volumes (acre-
feet) of discrete hypothetical pools in the
PSRK module. The PSUM module
completed the analysis by charging the
discrete hypothetical pools with a specified
mix of petroleum fluids and then calculating
resources for the individual pools and the
play as a whole.
The construction of probability distributions
for trap fill fractions relied upon subjective
analysis of each of the key elements
controlling trap fill. We first considered the
charge potential for the play, that is, the
extent to which hydrocarbons were made
available to fill traps within the play. In
plays understood to have easy access to
abundant hydrocarbons migrating from areas
of prolific oil and gas generation, trap fill
fractions were permitted to rise to a
maximum of 1.0 (100%). Generally, these
are plays with prospects amidst a
hydrocarbon generation center. In plays
perceived to have limited access to
migrating hydrocarbons were modeled with
prospects incompletely filled. For plays
51
requiring migration from distant generation
areas, trap fill fractions were reduced in
recognition of the risks of high losses and
diversions (up faults to surface seeps)
incurred by long-distance migration.
Given access to some significant source of
hydrocarbons for the play, attention was
then turned to trap size, trap amplitude, trap
type, and seal integrity. Trap size is an issue
where limited hydrocarbons are available to
fill high-volume traps. Trap amplitude
becomes a factor when the vertical relief is
very large, so large that differential
pressures across seals 33 at the crests could
rupture the seals and allow the hydrocarbons
to escape. Trap integrity is also a function
of trap type. A trap sealed by one or more
faults is probably at more risk for leakage
than a simple anticline sealed by a single,
continuous shale formation. Seal integrity is
generally controlled by lithology and
thickness. Even high-amplitude prospects
could reasonably be allowed to be
completely filled if sealed by thick, well-
consolidated, clay-rich shales. Shales that
can be shown to be geopressured also offer
greater seal integrity and more complete
filling of traps might be anticipated where
such geopressured shales form the seals.
Prospect Numbers
As noted above, MMS seismic mapping
identified a total of 74 prospects 34 in the
33
created by contrasts between hydrostatic
pressures in rocks saturated by relatively high-
density water and excess pressures (“buoyant
pressures”) developed in columns of relatively low-
density hydrocarbons
34
In plays 1, 2, 3, and 6. No prospects are mapped
in play 5. There, the minimum (F99) number of
prospects (and areas) were estimated from the
density and sizes of surface anticlines exposed on the
Alaska Peninsula from Becharof Lake to Chignik
Bay.
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area.
Some prospects represent closures at
different depth levels (separate play
sequences) on a single structure, so the total
number of identified discrete prospective
structures in the Planning Area is somewhat
less than 74.
In assessment work, we generally concede
that large numbers of prospects could
remain unidentified, some even in the most
thoroughly mapped areas. “Unidentified”
prospects exist for a variety of reasons.
Some prospects remain unidentified because
some areas lack seismic data. Some smaller
prospects may have been missed because
they fall within spaces in the seismic grid.
Other prospects may be missed because of
lack of detail in stratigraphic analysis.
Lastly, many prospects may remain
unidentified because they are subtle or
impossible to detect in seismic data. It is
generally acknowledged that unidentified
prospects exist in all basins and plays, that
some fraction of the unidentified prospects
probably contain petroleum, and that some
of the unidentified prospects will ultimately
be tested and discovered to contain pooled
oil or gas, perhaps in commercial quantities.
Therefore, unidentified prospects must be
given account in the assessment of
undiscovered oil and gas potential.
For the exploration plays identified in the
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
we supplemented the numbers of known
prospects with some estimate of the numbers
of prospects that might remain unidentified.
The estimation process focused on the
completeness of seismic information and the
level of geological complexity. In
thoroughly-mapped plays with simple
geology and large structures, like play 1,
relatively few prospects are expected to
remain unidentified. Conversely, in plays
with complex geology, deficient analysis
52
(sparse seismic data, or rudimentary
seismic-stratigraphic analysis), or
predominantly small prospects, like play 2,
very large numbers of prospects might
reasonably be expected to remain
unidentified.
We constructed prospect numbers
probability distributions for each play using
a graphical approach. Our practice was to
first post the number of mapped prospects at
F99 (99% probability of equaling or
exceeding the associated value) on log-
probability graph paper. To the number of
mapped prospects we add our estimate for
the number of unidentified prospects; this
sum is then posted at the extreme right (at
~F00) on the same log-probability plot. A
line connecting these two data points then
defines the probability distribution for
prospect numbers for a particular play.
We estimated that as many as 285
hypothetical prospects might remain
unidentified in the 5 assessed exploration
plays (play 4 was not quantitatively
assessed). When added to the 74 mapped
prospects (and the 11 prospects at minimum
inferred for play 5), we have a maximum
estimated endowment of 370 prospects.
When aggregated with the play risk models
in the MPRO module of GRASP, we
obtained a maximum endowment of 119
hypothetical pools 35 that contributed to the
overall undiscovered oil and gas potential of
the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area.
Pay Thickness Model
Cook Inlet oil fields (data reported by
AOGCC, 2001) were used as an analog for
35
sum of maximum numbers of pools found for 5
plays, as reported in tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
developing probability distributions for pay
thickness for the prospects in North Aleutian
basin. The North Aleutian Shelf COST 1
well encountered abundant thick sandstones
(aggregate exceeding 3,000 feet) in the Bear
Lake-Stepovak play (1) sequence. Given
the thin and discontinuous shale seals within
and above the Bear Lake-Stepovak
sequence, and, the unknown charge capacity
for basin petroleum sources, it seems
unlikely that all sandstones in this sequence
would form “pay” across any given
prospect. The nonmarine to inner neritic
sandstones of the Bear Lake-Stepovak
sequence are broadly analogous to the
nonmarine to inner neritic (estuarine)
Tertiary basin fill of Cook Inlet basin (Kenai
Gp., Beluga Fm., and Sterling Fm.) as
described by Hite (1976) and Hayes et al.
(1976). Pay thickness data for the oil and
gas fields of northern Cook Inlet are
presented in figure 38. The statistical fit to
these data was used to model pay thickness
for analogous plays (1 and 3) in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area. Figure
11 shows that there is clearly adequate
sandstone in this sequence to accommodate
the most generous pay thickness model—
certainly the modest pay thickness model
developed from Cook Inlet oil and gas fields
in figure 38. (We note that the amplitudes
of mapped prospects in the North Aleutian
basin range from 46 to 584 feet [mean = 227
feet], adequate at maximum amplitudes to
accommodate the full pay column [456 feet]
modeled in figure 38.) Pay thicknesses for
play 2 were reduced to reflect the observed
(in core data) poor reservoir qualities in the
sandstones of the Tolstoi play sequence.
Construction of Probability Distributions
With Limited Data
The input parameters required by the
computer models for plays are listed in the
53
data forms shown in table 3 through table
13. There has been little or no exploratory
drilling and very little data are directly
available for most of these input parameters.
However, in many cases, one can forecast
the extreme ranges for any particular input
parameter using regional well data or data
from analogous basins. For example, in the
calculation of gas recovery factors, the
reservoir temperature is an important
variable that is controlled by burial depth
and geothermal gradient. The latter
information is available from seismic
mapping (depths) and well data (geothermal
gradient), or thermal models from analogous
basins. Our approach to constructing a
probability distribution for reservoir
temperature is to estimate the temperature
extremes – the temperatures of the
shallowest (coolest) and deepest (hottest)
prospects in the play. Then, we post the
minimum temperature at the 99.99
(effectively 100.0) percent probability and
the maximum temperature at the
0.01 (effectively 0) percent probability in a
“normal” (Gaussian) probability plot. (One
might also use a log-normal probability plot
to conduct this exercise. We assumed a
normal distribution for play reservoir
temperature.) A straight line drawn
connecting the two points (invoking a
normal distribution) then defines a
probability distribution for reservoir
temperature for the play. An example plot is
shown in figure 39. Newendorp (1975,
p. 383) termed such constructions “force-fit”
distributions. Many input probability
distributions in the geologic computer
models for plays in this assessment were
created using this method.
Computation of Oil and Gas Recovery
Factors
The GRASP computer model requires
entries for recoverable petroleum per unit
volume of petroleum-saturated reservoir.
The data forms in table 3 through table 13
list these entries as “Oil Recovery Factor”
(barrels of oil recoverable per acre-foot of
reservoir pool) and “Gas Recovery Factor”
(thousands of cubic feet of gas recoverable
per acre-foot of reservoir pool). In the
absence of local production experience,
predicting these values for undiscovered
pools is difficult because they are the
product of complex interactions of several
variables. Analogous reservoirs in
comparable plays or geologic settings can
form a source for such data. However,
establishing credible analogs and finding
published data for them are both difficult
tasks. In the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area, we chose to use a computer
model to calculate the oil and gas recovery
factors using basic information that is often
available from regional studies or local well
data.
The data required to compute oil and gas
recovery factors are essentially the variables
in the yield equations for oil and gas. These
are listed in the data forms of tables 9, 10,
11, and 12 and are noted in the yield
equations below:
Oil Recovery Factor:
a. Porosity (decimal fraction)
b. Water Saturation (decimal fraction)
c. Oil Recovery Efficiency (decimal
fraction)
d. Oil Volume Factor (as 1/FVF [where
FVF = Formation Volume Factor =
Reservoir Barrels Per Stock Tank
Barrels])
Barrels Oil Recoverable per Acre-Foot of
54
Pool Reservoir (BO)
= 7758.38 Bbl/acre-ft (a·(1-b)·c·d)
Gas Recovery Factor:
a. Porosity (decimal fraction)
b. Water Saturation (decimal fraction)
c. Reservoir Pressure (pounds per in2)
d. Gas FVF (as 1/Z [Z = Gas
Deviation 36 Factor])
e. Gas Recovery Efficiency (decimal
fraction)
f. Gas Shrinkage Factor (decimal
fraction)
g. Reservoir Temperature (in °Rankine=
°F+460)
Thousands of Cubic Feet of Gas
Recoverable per Acre-Foot of Pool
Reservoir (MCFG)*
= [43,560 ft3/acre-ft] [a·(1-b)]
[(60°+460°)·d·e] [c/14.73] [(1-f)/g [1/1,000]
* (at standard surface conditions of 60
°F (520°R) and 14.73 pounds per in2 [1
atmosphere]) 37
or, rearranging for simplification:
Thousands of Cubic Feet of Gas
Recoverable per Acre-Foot of Pool
Reservoir (MCFG)*
36
Also known as the compressibility factor, a
measure of deviation from ideal gas behavior. The
“Z” factor can be defined as the ratio between the
volume actually occupied by a gas at a certain
pressure and temperature and the volume that the
gas would occupy, if it behaved like an ideal gas, at
the same pressure and temperature (McCain, 1973,
p. 95-109). For ideal gases, the “Z” value is 1.0.
“Z” factors can range from 0.2 to 2.0, but in most
North Aleutian prospects, estimated “Z” values
range from 0.65 to 1.04 (tbls. 9 to 11).
37
The value of 14.73 psi/atm was inherited from
earlier MMS assessment work. The conventional
value is 14.70 psi/atm, although the legal base in
many States is 14.65 psi/atm, and in New Mexico and
Louisiana it is 15.025 psi/atm (Craft and Hawkins,
1959, p. 11).
 = 1537.8 (a·(1-b)·c·d·e) (1-f)/g
Many of these variables, such as
temperature, pressure, and porosity, are
depth-dependent and can be predicted over
the depth ranges of plays if geothermal,
geopressure, and porosity-decline gradients,
respectively, are known. These latter data
are available from exploratory wells and can
often be extrapolated with some confidence
over large areas. In this case, geothermal
and geopressure data were obtained from the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well.
Likewise, porosity data were extracted from
the abundant core porosity data obtained by
the COST well and incorporated directly
into oil and gas yields after statistical
approximation by normal and log-normal
distributions (figs. 12, 13, 14, and 15).
If reservoir texture can be estimated,
irreducible water saturations can be
predicted from porosity determinations by
reference to a series of general tables and
charts. We began by estimating the
lithology and grain size of potential
reservoirs and using these data to estimate
bulk volume water using a published table
(Asquith and Gibson, 1982, p. 98, tbl. 8).
The value for bulk volume water was taken
as equivalent to the “φSwi” (porosity ⋅
irreducible water saturation) curves in a
porosity-saturation cross plot published by
Schlumberger (1991, p. 158, chart K-3). By
pairing minimum and maximum porosity
values with extreme “φSwi ” values (from
textural considerations and the Asquith
table) 38 , estimates for irreducible water
saturations can be read from the
Schlumberger chart. In this way, minimum
and maximum values for water saturations
38
minimum porosity (10%) paired with a poorly-
sorted, very- fine-grained sandstone; maximum
observed porosity paired with a well-sorted example
of the coarsest-grained clastic rock expected to occur
within the play sequence
55
were determined for the play and used to
construct “force-fit” log-normal probability
distributions for entry to the computer
model. Averaged “initial water saturation”
data for Cook Inlet oil and gas fields
(AOGCC, 2001) were used to calibrate the
medians of the probability distributions for
water saturation in the North Aleutian plays.
When oil is produced, it shrinks in volume
because gases dissolved in the oil at
reservoir pressures are released at surface
pressures. This volume change is
represented by the “Oil Formation Volume
Factor” or “FVF” (reservoir barrels per
stock tank barrels) and it is dictated by the
quantity of dissolved solution gas (gas-oil
ratio, or GOR), which is in turn controlled
by reservoir pressure, temperature and
petroleum composition(s). A single
distribution was used for all North Aleutian
plays. The probability distribution for
Formation Volume Factor was estimated
from a statistical fit to 14 FVF values
reported for Cook Inlet producing oil fields
(AOGCC, 2001). These data were inverted
and entered as the “Oil Volume Factor
(1/FVF)” for purposes of oil yield
calculations (tbls. 9, 10, 11, and 12).
Ranges in oil and gas recovery efficiencies
were estimated from recovery data for
various combinations of reservoirs and drive
mechanisms as published by White (1989, p.
3-29 to 3-31) and Arps (1967).
The gas “Z” factor, or “deviation” factor,
was determined using charts published by
Standings and Katz (1942; republished by
Anderson [1975, p. 155-156] and McCain
[1973, p. 95-109]) and using estimates for
gas gravities, reservoir temperatures, and
reservoir pressures. Gas gravities were
obtained from data for producing fields in
Cook Inlet (AOGCC, 2001).
Probability distributions for all of the
variables in the yield equations, and
appropriate unit conversion constants, were
entered into the @RISK computer program
and aggregated with dependencies to
calculate probability distributions for oil and
gas recovery factors. The input variables
and the dependency models are shown in
tables 9, 10, 11, and 12. Probability
distributions for oil and gas recovery factors
for play 6 (listed in tbl. 8) were taken from
MMS data compilations by Paul Post (pers.
Comm.., August, 2003).
Risk Assessment
Analyses of play risk were carried out along
the lines suggested by White (1993). First,
risk was assessed at the play level, where the
absence of a critical element could hazard
the success of the entire play. Second, risk
was assessed at the prospect level, where a
critical element might be absent at some
sites and cause some fraction of the
prospects in a successful play to be barren of
hydrocarbons.
Chances for success at the prospect level are
analogous to drilling success rates in
commercially successful plays in productive
basins (some specific examples provided by
Clifford, 1986, p. 370). Our subjective
estimates for prospect level chances of
success are conditioned upon success (i.e.,
success is assumed) at the play level. The
play chance for an unproven play is
typically less than 1.0. The prospect chance
is ultimately multiplied against the play
chance to obtain an “exploration” chance.
The exploration chance is in turn used with
the (probability distribution for) numbers of
prospects to determine the (probability
56
distribution for) numbers of pools 39 .
Success of a play or prospect can be defined
in different ways. Commercial success in
oil prospecting is contingent upon finding
sufficient reserves to permit the
accumulation to be developed at a profit.
However, some (or most) oil or gas pools,
particularly in the Arctic, are too small to
warrant commercial development.
Nevertheless, these small pools represent
“geologic” successes, proving that
petroleum must have been generated
somewhere and was able to migrate to traps
bearing porous media. The small pools, by
their existence, prove that all components of
the play petroleum system are working
properly.
In this assessment of the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area, the condition for
“geologic” success for a play was a single
occurrence of conventionally pooled
hydrocarbons capable of flowing to a well-
bore. Any play known to host such an
occurrence was assigned a play level chance
of success of 1.0. For example, based on
small gas flows in tests from the Tolstoi
Formation at the Becharof Lake 1 and the
David River 1/1A wells, play 2 (Tolstoi)
was assigned a play chance of 1.0. The play
chances for all other plays are less than 1.0
because no pooled hydrocarbons have been
identified in these plays. No attempt was
made to formalize a specific minimum field
size as part of the condition of “geologic”
success. Although similar definitions for
play success, in which no minimum pool
sizes are specified, are advocated by some
experts, (Capen, 1992; Rose, 1992), the
practice has been criticized by prominent
experts such as White (1993, p. 2050).
39
performed in a mathematically complex
process by the MPRO module of the GRASP
computer program, as described by Bennett (1994)
The construction of risk models required a
subjective appraisal of the factors
underlying play and prospect success. Our
subjective risk analysis focused upon each
of the main elements required for successful
creation and preservation of oil or gas
accumulations, including: 1) trap definition
and integrity; 2), reservoir presence and
quality; 3) charge or source success; and 4)
Assessment Results for North Aleutian Basin
Table 14 shows the results of the 2006 oil
and gas assessment of the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area, including results
for total technically recoverable
hydrocarbon energy (in barrels of oil-
equivalent) and four individual commodities
(oil, condensate from gas, free gas (“non-
associated” 40 and solution gas) for
individual plays. Planning Area totals by
individual commodity are also listed.
Play 1: Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-
Miocene)
Play 1 is the dominant play in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, with
61% (1,400 Mmboe) of the Planning Area
hydrocarbon energy endowment (2,287
Mmboe) at mean risked values. The play
hydrocarbon energy endowment (risked,
recoverable) ranges from 0 Mmboe (F95) to
3,749 Mmboe (F05), as shown in figure
40
The term “non-associated gas” as used in GRASP
output reports refers to both free gas occurring as
pools of gas unaccompanied by oil and free gas
occurring in gas caps directly overlying oil
accumulations. The industry convention is to
describe the free gas in caps overlying oil
accumulations as “associated” gas.
57
preservation success. Exploration chances
for the 6 plays identified in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area range
from 0.0 (play 4) to 0.1872 (play 1). The
key risk factors for each of the 6 plays
identified in the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area are listed in tables 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 8.
40A. Gas (“non-associated” [free] gas and
solution gas) forms 71% of the hydrocarbon
energy endowment of play 1.
In the computer simulation for play 1, each
of the 7,198 successful trials is comprised of
one or more “pools” (or “hits”, in
assessment vernacular), for a total of 73,007
pools sampled for size (tbl. 15). These pools
can be grouped and displayed as size
classes, as shown in the histogram of figure
40B. Pool size class 12 contains the largest
share (15,882, or 22%) of pools
“discovered” among the 10,000 trials 41
conducted by the computer simulation for
play 1. Pool size class 12 ranges from 64 to
128 Mmboe. Pool count statistics for the
play 1 simulation are shown in table 15. The
largest pool among the 73,007 pools or
“hits” in the computer simulation for play 1
falls within pool size class 19, which ranges
in size from 8,192 to 16,384 Mmboe (or 46
41
The model simulates the drilling of all pools in the
play by comparing computer-generated random
numbers (ranging from 0.0 to 1.0) to the user-input
play risk factors (play risk = 1.0 – play chance).
When the random number exceeds the risk, then the
trial is declared “successful,” indicating a discovery
(i.e., hydrocarbons exist in the pool), or pool. Most
successful trials contain several pools.
to 92 Tcfge; tbl. 15 and fig. 40B). The
computer simulation therefore indicates
some potential for very large hydrocarbon
pools in play 1.
A maximum of 34 hypothetical pools is
forecast by the aggregation of the risk model
and the prospect numbers model (tbl. 3) for
play 1, as shown in figure 40C. These 34
pools range in mean conditional (un-risked)
recoverable volumes from 6 Mmboe (pool
rank 34) to 827 Mmboe (pool rank 1). Pool
rank 1 (fig. 40C) ranges in possible
conditional recoverable volumes from 187
Mmboe (F95) to 2,495 Mmboe (F05), or in a
gas case from 1.05 Tcfge (F95) to 14.02
Tcfge (F05). Data for the size ranges of
play 1 pools are given in table 16. As noted
above, at low probabilities we observe some
potential for very large hydrocarbon pools in
play 1. The high-side potential recognizes
the combination of large, simple traps and
thick, high-quality reservoir formations that
form the best exploration opportunities in
both play 1 and the entire North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area. Overall, play 1
and most of the North Aleutian basin are
hypothesized to be charged by sources
within the Tertiary basin fill and are
modeled as gas prone. Therefore, the largest
pool in play 1 (and in the Planning Area) is
most likely to be charged by gas.
Play 2: Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene)
Play 2 is the second most important play in
the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area, with 25% (568 Mmboe) of the
Planning Area hydrocarbon energy
endowment (2,287 Mmboe) at mean risked
values. The play 2 hydrocarbon energy
endowment (risked, recoverable) ranges
from 91 Mmboe (F95) to 1,293 Mmboe
(F05), as shown in figure 41A. Gas (“non-
associated” [free] gas and solution gas)
58
forms 78% of the hydrocarbon energy
endowment of play 2.
In the computer simulation for play 2, each
of the 9,905 successful trials is comprised of
one or more pools (or “hits”), for a total of
61,326 pools sampled for size (tbl. 17).
These pools can be grouped and displayed
as size classes, as shown in the histogram of
figure 41B. Pool size class 12 contains the
largest share (18,963, or 31%) of pools
“discovered” among the 10,000 trials
conducted by the computer simulation for
play 2. Pool size class 12 ranges from 64 to
128 Mmboe. Pool count statistics for the
play 2 simulation are shown in table 17.
The 5 largest pools among the 61,326 pools
or “hits” in the computer simulation for play
2 fall within pool size class 16, which ranges
in size from 1,024 to 2,048 Mmboe (or 5.8
to 11.5 Tcfge; fig. 41B). The computer
simulation therefore indicates some low-
probability potential for large hydrocarbon
pools in play 2.
A maximum of 44 hypothetical pools is
forecast by the integration of the risk model
and the prospect numbers model (tbl. 4) for
play 2, as shown in figure 41C. These 44
pools range in mean conditional (un-risked)
recoverable volumes from 7 Mmboe (pool
rank 44) to 208 Mmboe (pool rank 1). Pool
rank 1 (fig. 41C) ranges in possible
conditional recoverable volumes from 61
Mmboe (F95) to 467 Mmboe (F05), or, in
the gas case, from 0.34 Tcfge (F95) to 2.62
Tcfge (F05). Data for the size ranges of the
play 2 pools are given in table 18. The
modest high-side potential recognizes the
thin, typically impermeable reservoir
formations that characterize play 2. Overall,
play 2 is Tertiary-sourced and is modeled as
gas-prone, so the largest pool is most likely
to be charged by gas.
Play 3: Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin
(Eocene-Miocene)
Play 3 is a subordinate play in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, with
9% (210 Mmboe) of the Planning Area
hydrocarbon energy endowment (2,287
Mmboe). The play 3 hydrocarbon energy
endowment (risked, recoverable) ranges
from 0 Mmboe (F95) to 1,077 Mmboe
(F05), as shown in figure 42A. Gas (“non-
associated” [free] gas and solution gas)
forms 26% of the hydrocarbon energy
endowment of play 3.
In the computer simulation for play 3, each
of the 4,127 successful trials is comprised of
one or more pools (or “hits”), for a total of
15,323 pools sampled for size (tbl. 19).
These pools can be grouped and displayed
as size classes, as shown in the histogram of
figure 42B. Pool size class 11 contains the
largest share (2,521, or 16%) of pools
“discovered” among the 10,000 trials
conducted by the computer simulation for
play 3. Pool size class 11 ranges from 32 to
64 Mmboe. Pool count statistics for the play
3 simulation are shown in table 19. The
largest pool among the 15,323 pools or
“hits” in the computer simulation for play 3
falls within pool size class 19, which ranges
in size from 8,192 to 16,384 Mmboe (fig.
42B). The computer simulation therefore
indicates a low-probability potential for very
large hydrocarbon pools in play 3.
A maximum of 13 hypothetical pools is
forecast by the aggregation of the risk model
and the prospect numbers model (tbl. 5) for
play 3, as shown in figure 42C. These pools
range in mean conditional (un-risked)
recoverable volumes from 4 Mmboe (pool
rank 13) to 378 Mmboe (pool rank 1). Pool
rank 1 (fig. 42C) ranges in possible
conditional recoverable volumes from 20
Mmboe (F95) to 1,302 Mmboe (F05), or, in
59
the gas case, from 0.11 Tcfge (F95) to 7.32
Tcfge (F05). Data for the size ranges of the
play 3 pools are given in table 20. As noted
above, at very low probabilities, we observe
some potential for large pools of
hydrocarbons in play 3. This high-side
potential recognizes the small number of
very large closures in play 3 that have been
identified by seismic mapping. Because of
the potential for oil sourced from underlying
Mesozoic sedimentary rocks and the great
distance to Tertiary gas sources, play 3 is
predominately an oil play. The largest pool
in play 3 is most likely to contain oil.
Play 4: Milky River Biogenic Gas (Plio-
Pleistocene)
Play 4 is the most regionally extensive yet
least prospective play in the North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area. Play 4 probably
contains sizeable in-place quantities of
biogenic gas. However, all hypothetical
prospects (none are identified) are related to
stratigraphic isolation of sandstone or
glacial-moraine bodies within
unconsolidated marine mud. Any gas
production might be accompanied by high
water production because of low gas
saturations, a common experience in
biogenic gas production. Formation
pressures are low owing to shallow burial
depths and recovery efficiencies will
accordingly be quite low. The recoverable
biogenic gas endowment of play 4 is
therefore assessed as negligible, as shown in
table 6 and figure 43.
Play 5: Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary
Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous)
Play 5 contributes 1.8% (41 Mmboe) to the
hydrocarbon energy endowment (2,287
Mmboe) of the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area. The play hydrocarbon
energy endowment (risked, recoverable)
ranges from 0 Mmboe (F95) to 197 Mmboe
(F05), as shown in figure 44A. Gas
(solution gas only) forms 7% of the
hydrocarbon energy endowment of play 5.
In the computer simulation for play 5, each
of the 3,923 successful trials is comprised of
one or more pools (or “hits”), for a total of
14,327 pools sampled for size (tbl. 21).
These pools can be grouped and displayed
as size classes, as shown in the histogram of
figure 44B. Pool size class 10 contains the
largest share (3,088, or 22%) of pools
“discovered” among the 10,000 trials
conducted by the computer simulation for
play 5. Pool size class 10 ranges from 16 to
32 Mmboe. Pool count statistics for the play
5 simulation are shown in table 21. The
largest pool among the 14,327 pools or
“hits” in the computer simulation for play 5
falls within pool size class 16, which ranges
in size from 1,024 to 2,048 Mmboe (tbl. 21
and fig. 44B). The computer simulation
therefore indicates an extremely low-
probability potential for modest to large
(sub-multi-billion barrel) hydrocarbon pools
in play 5.
A maximum of 13 hypothetical pools is
forecast by the aggregation of the risk model
and the prospect numbers model (tbl. 7) for
play 5, as shown in figure 44C. These pools
range in mean conditional (un-risked)
recoverable volumes from 2 Mmboe (pool
rank 13) to 63 Mmboe (pool rank 1). Pool
rank 1 (fig. 44C) ranges in possible
conditional recoverable volumes from 8
Mmboe (F95) to 176 Mmboe (F05), or, in
the case of gas, from 0.04 Tcfge (F95) to
0.99 Tcfge (F05). Data for the size ranges
of the play 5 pools are given in table 22.
Overall, it seems unlikely that any sizeable
pools of hydrocarbons will be found in play
5—mostly because of the poor reservoir
60
capacities forecast by the observed regional
zeolitization and wholesale pore occlusion
in Mesozoic sandstones. The Mesozoic
assemblage of play 5 includes rocks that are
age-equivalent to established regional oil
sources. Although the age-equivalent rocks
in play 5 have not been securely
demonstrated to be significant sources for
oil in the area of the North Aleutian basin, it
is most likely that if any pools exist in play
5, they will consist of oil.
Play 6: Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills
(Jurassic-Cretaceous Magmatic Rocks)
Play 6 is a subordinate play in the North
Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area with 3%
(67 Mmboe) of the Planning Area
hydrocarbon energy endowment (2,287
Mmboe). The play hydrocarbon energy
endowment (risked, recoverable) ranges
from 0 Mmboe (F95) to 330 Mmboe (F05),
as shown in figure 45A. Gas (“non-
associated” [free] gas and solution gas)
forms 55% of the hydrocarbon energy
endowment of play 6.
In the computer simulation for play 6, each
of the 3,427 successful trials is comprised of
one or more pools (or “hits”), for a total of
13,089 pools sampled for size (tbl. 23).
These pools can be grouped and displayed
as size classes, as shown in the histogram of
figure 45B. Pool size class 10 contains the
largest share (2,483, or 19%) of pools
“discovered” among the 10,000 trials
conducted by the computer simulation for
play 6. Pool size class 10 ranges from 16 to
32 Mmboe. Pool count statistics for the play
6 simulation are shown in table 23. The 4
largest pools among the 13,089 pools or
“hits” in the computer simulation for play 6
falls within pool size class 18, which ranges
in size from 4,096 to 8,192 Mmboe. The
computer simulation therefore indicates a
low probability (effectively zero) for very
large hydrocarbon pools in play 6.
A maximum of 15 hypothetical pools is
forecast by the aggregation of the risk model
and the prospect numbers model (tbl. 8) for
play 6, as shown in figure 45C. These pools
range in mean conditional (un-risked)
recoverable volumes from 2 Mmboe (pool
rank 15) to 148 Mmboe (pool rank 1). Pool
rank 1 (fig. 45C) ranges in possible
conditional recoverable volumes from 9
Mmboe (F95) to 469 Mmboe (F05), or, in
the gas case, from 0.05 Tcfge (F95) to 2.64
Tcfge (F05). Data for the size ranges of the
play 6 pools are given in table 24. At low
probabilities, we observe some potential for
modest-size pools of hydrocarbons in play
6—their modest sizes owing mostly to the
doubtful capacity of the fractured granites
that are conjectured to form the reservoirs
for play 6 pools. Play 6 is Tertiary-sourced
and is modeled as gas prone, so the largest
pool is most likely to be charged by gas.
Overall Results for Oil and Gas
Endowments of North Aleutian Basin
Graphical summaries for overall basin
hydrocarbon endowments (risked,
recoverable) are shown in figure 46. Total
Planning Area technically recoverable
hydrocarbon resources range from 91
Mmboe (F95) to 6,647 Mmboe (F05), with a
mean outcome of 2,287 Mmboe (fig. 46A).
At mean values, 67% of the hydrocarbon
energy endowment is gas (“non-associated”
[free] gas and solution gas from oil) and
33% is liquid petroleum (free oil and
condensate from gas). The North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area is overall a gas-
prone province, although some subordinate
plays are primarily oil plays.
Technically recoverable gas resources for
61
the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area range from 0.404 Tcfg (F95) to 23.278
Tcfg (F05), with a mean outcome of 8.622
Tcfg (fig. 46B). Table 14 separates gas
commodities and shows that at mean values,
97% (8.393 Tcfg) of the gas endowment
exists as “non-associated” [free] gas, with
the remaining 3% (0.229 Tcfg) dissolved as
solution gas in free oil.
Technically recoverable liquid petroleum
resources for the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area range from 19 Mmbo (F95)
to 2,505 Mmbo (F05), with a mean outcome
of 751 Mmbo (fig. 46C). Table 14 separates
liquid petroleum commodities and shows
that at mean values, 72% (545 Mmbo) of the
liquid petroleum exists as free oil, with the
remaining 28% (208 Mmbo) dissolved as
condensate in free gas.
A comparative plot for cumulative
probability distributions for liquid petroleum
(oil and condensate), total petroleum energy
(BOE, all gas and liquids), and total gas
(free gas and solution gas) is shown in figure
46D.
Large Individual Gas Fields Are Possible
Play 1, the Bear Lake-Stepovak play,
captures most of the large prospects in the
central part of the North Aleutian basin.
The mean conditional (un-risked) size of the
largest hypothetical pool in play 1 (and the
North Aleutian basin overall) is 4.65
trillions of cubic feet of natural gas (or 827
millions of barrels [oil-energy-equivalent]).
As shown in the pool rank plot in figure 47,
the largest hypothetical pool is nearly twice
the size of the largest gas field in Cook Inlet
(Kenai gas field, 2.427 Tcfg EUR). At
maximum (F05) size, the largest pool in play
1 could contain 14.02 trillions of cubic feet
of natural gas (or 2.495 billions of barrels
[oil-energy-equivalent]).
Economic Potential of North Aleutian
Basin
The hypothetical infrastructure model for
the 2006 MMS economic assessment is
illustrated in the map of figure 48. Our
infrastructure model, although a likely
scenario, was constructed only for the
purpose of conducting economic tests and is
not necessarily a predictor of actual future
installations. The model assumes that
several prospects that were leased in 1988
(since relinquished untested back to the U.S.
Government) are found to contain
commercial gas reserves. Development
platforms (with some subsea completions
over field margins) send production to an
offshore hub that is centrally located over
the prospect that garnered the highest bids in
the 1988 lease sale. Trunk pipelines (gas
and oil) link the offshore hub to gas
conditioning facilities and a liquefied-
natural-gas (LNG) plant at a port in Balboa
Bay on the Pacific (south) coast of the
Alaska Peninsula (fig. 48). At the LNG
plant, the natural gas is chilled to a liquid
state (-260°F) preparatory to loading into
tankers. The LNG tankers then convey the
gas to receiving and re-gasification
terminals either at Nikiski in Cook Inlet
(550 mi. tanker sailing) or on the U.S. West
Coast (assumed 2,600 mi. tanker sailing).
Minimum transportation tariffs in the
economic model represent a Cook Inlet
destination while the maximum tariffs
represent a U.S. West Coast destination.
The Cook Inlet market is isolated and small,
typically consuming a little over 200 Bcfg/yr
(Sherwood and Craig, 2001, tbl. 5). It is
unlikely that the entire North Aleutian basin
production stream (estimated at 150
62
Bcfg/yr) could be absorbed by the Cook
Inlet market. Most North Aleutian basin gas
would likely be marketed to the U.S. West
Coast, Hawaii, or perhaps even the Asian
Pacific Rim. However, the Cook Inlet
would form a logical and accessible
alternative destination for some fraction of
the production from North Aleutian basin.
Condensate and oil are assumed to be loaded
at Balboa Bay and tankered to Cook Inlet or
perhaps to the oil loading terminal for the
Trans-Alaska oil pipeline system (TAPS) at
Valdez, Alaska (located in figs. 1, 4).
A summary of the results of the economic
modeling for the North Aleutian basin are
shown in table 25. Economic modeling
yields first positive economic results at
prices of $14/barrel of oil and $2.12/Mcf of
associated solution gas. Non-associated gas
pools yield first positive economic results at
a gas price of $3.63/Mcf (tbl. 25). In any
case, these “threshold” prices correspond to
very small risked volumes of gas,
condensate, and oil. Meaningful volumes of
gas (>1 Tcfg) are not economically
recoverable until prices exceed $4.54/Mcfg
(tbl. 25).
A minimum developable gas reserve of 5
Tcf will probably be required to justify a
grassroots LNG export system in the remote
frontier area of the North Aleutian basin.
The 5 Tcf of gas will presumably be
supplied by several fields. Our economic
analysis indicates that economic recovery of
5 Tcf of gas will require prices of $6.50/Mcf
and $43/barrel (2005$) landed at the U.S.
West Coast. Current gas prices do exceed
$6.50/Mcf by a wide margin (recent gas
prices at the Los Angeles city gate exceed
$13.00/Mcf; Natural Gas Week, 19
December 2005). If market prices can be
sustained at the current level or higher, a
large fraction of the North Aleutian basin
gas endowment could ultimately be
economically recoverable.

63
 References Cited
AEO (Annual Energy Outlook), 2001, Annual
Energy Outlook 2002 With Projections to 2020:
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information
Administration (EIA), Report DOE/EIA-0383
(2002), December 2001, 255 p.
AGAT (Consultants, Inc.), 1983, Arco North
Aleutian Shelf C.O.S.T. #1 well, Bristol Basin,
Alaska, Section I, final integration of lithologic and
reservoir quality analysis of core, core samples,
sidewall core samples and cuttings samples in the
interval 2,000-17,155 ‘ (T.D.): Report for ARCO
Exploration Company and industry consortium,
October 1983, Available in public well file,
Minerals Management Service, 949 E. 36th Ave.,
Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503.
AKDO&G (Alaska State Division of Oil and Gas),
2002, 2002 Report, Table & Graphs Edition,
December: Annual report by the State of Alaska,
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil
and Gas, 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 800, Anchorage,
AK 99501, 97 p. Available for download at:
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/
AKDO&G (Alaska State Division of Oil and Gas),
2004, Supplemental Notice (dated 22 Dec04) of
Bristol Bay Basin Oil & Gas Exploration License
No. 1: Available at AKDO&G website at
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publica
tions/bristolbay/bristol_bay.htm
Alaska Report, 1998, Clinton extends continental
shelf oil leasing moratorium: Alaska Report, 17
June 1998, p. 9.
Anderson, G., 1975, Coring and Core Analysis
Handbook: Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK,
200 p.
Anderson, Warren and Associates, 1977a, Organic
maturation analysis: Report for U.S. Geological
Survey, August 22, 1977, Amoco Cathedral River
1 well, organic maturation analysis, Anderson,
Warren and Associates, Inc., Consulting
Micropaleontology, 11526 Sorrento Valley Road,
Suite G, San Diego, CA 92121. Available to
public as Alaska Geologic Materials Center
(AGMC) Report No. 47, Micropaleontology
64
Report (Maturation Analysis), State of Alaska
Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box 772805,
18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River, AK,
99577-2805, 4 p.
Anderson, Warren and Associates, 1977b, Organic
maturation analysis: Report for U.S. Geological
Survey, August 22, 1977, Gulf Sandy River
Federal 1 well, nannoplankton, palynology, and
foraminifera reports, Anderson, Warren and
Associates, Inc., Consulting Micropaleontology,
11526 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite G, San Diego,
CA 92121, 16 p.
AOGCC (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission), 1959a, Well completion report for
Humble Bear Creek No. 1 well: Public well data
file at Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission, 333 W. 7th Ave., Anchorage, Alaska
99501, downloadable at
http://aogweb.state.ak.us/weblink/, document 100-
140, 28 p.
AOGCC (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission), 1959b, Well completion report for
General Petroleum Corp. Great Basins No. 1 well:
Public well data file at Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, 333 W. 7th Ave.,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501, downloadable at
http://aogweb.state.ak.us/weblink/, document 159-
004, 31 p.
AOGCC (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission), 1985, Well completion report for
Amoco Becharof Lake No. 1 well: Public well
data file at Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission, 333 W. 7th Ave., Anchorage, Alaska
99501.
AOGCC (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission), 2001, Statistical report for 2001:
Published annually by Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, 3001 Porcupine Drive,
Anchorage, AK 99501. Download at
http://www/state.ak.us/local/akpages/ADMIN/ogc/
annual/annindex.htm, 323 p.
Areshev, E.G., Dong, T.L., San, N.T., and Shnip,
O.A., 1992, Reservoirs in fractured basement on
 the continental shelf of southern Vietnam: Journal
of Petroleum Geolgoy, v. 15, no. 4, p. 451-464.
Arps, J.J., Folkert, B., van Everdingen, A.F.,
Buchwald, R.W., and Smith, A.E., 1967, A
statistical study of recovery efficiency: American
Petroleum Institute, Bulletin D14, First Edition,
Washington, D.C., 33 p.
Asquith, G., and Gibson, C.R., 1982, Basic Well Log
Analysis for Geologists: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Methods in Exploration
Series, Tulsa, OK, USA, 216 p.
Bailey, A., 2005, Bristol Shores applies for another
exploration license: Petroleum News Alaska, v.
10, no. 26 (week of 26 June 2005), p. A10.
Bally, A.W., and Snelson, S., 1980, Realms of
Subsidence, in: Facts and Principals of World
Petroleum Occurrence, Miall, A.D. (ed.), Canadian
Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 6, p. 9-
94.
Baseline DGSI, 2003, Characterization of
hydrocarbons extracted from two intervals in the
North Aleutian COST 1 well: Report 03-529-A
prepared by Baseline DGSI, 8701 New Trails
Drive, The Woodlands, Texas for U.S. Minerals
Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Available to public as Alaska Geologic Materials
Center (AGMC) Report No. 309, State of Alaska
Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box 772805,
18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River, AK,
99577-2805, CD-ROM and printed copy, 47 p.
Also available as Appendix 3 of this report.
Baskin, D.K., 1997, H/C Ratio of Kerogen as an
Estimate of Thermal Maturity and Organic Matter
Conversion: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 81, no, 9, p. 1437-1450.
Bennett, J.O., 1994, Mathematical, statistical, and
numerical analysis report of PRASS1 program
MPRO: Internal Memorandum, Minerals
Management Service, Herndon, VA, 51 p.
Bond, G.C., and Kominz, M.A., 1988, Evolution of
thought on passive continental margins from the
origin of geosynclinal theory (~1860) to the
present: Geological Society of America Bulletin,
v. 100, no. 12, p. 1909-1933.
Bond, G.C., Lewis, S.D., Taber, J., Steckler, M.S.,
and Kominz, M.A., 1988, Evidence for formation
of a flexural back-arc by compression and crustal
65
thickening in the central Alaska Peninsula:
Geology, v. 16, no. 12, p. 1147-1150.
Boreham, C.J., and Powell, T.G., 1993, Petroleum
source rock potential of coal and associated
sediments—qualitative and quantitative aspects, in:
Hydrocarbons from Coal, Rice, D.D., and Law,
B.E. (eds.), American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Studies in Geology 38, p. 133-157.
Boss, R.F., Lennon, R.B., and Wilson, B.W., 1976,
Middle Ground Shoal oil field, Alaska, in: North
American Oil and Gas Fields, Braunstein, J. (ed.),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir 24, p. 1-22.
Brockway, R., Alexander, B., Day, P., Lyle, W.,
Hiles, R., Decker, W., Polski, W., and Reed, B.,
1975, Bristol Bay region-stratigraphic correlation
section-southwest Alaska: Published by the Alaska
Geological Society, P.O. Box 101288, Anchorage,
AK 99510, one sheet.
Brown, D., 2005, Vietnam Finds Oil in the
Basement: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Explorer, v. 26, no. 2, (February 2005),
p. 8-11.
Burk, C.A., 1965, Geology of the Alaska Peninsula—
Island Arc and Continental Margin: Geological
Society of America Memoir 99, 250 p.
Capen, E., 1992, Dealing with exploration
uncertainties: in: The Business of Petroleum
Exploration, Steinmetz, R. (ed.), American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Treatise of
Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum
Geology, p. 29-35.
Case, J.E., Detterman, R.L., Wilson, F.H., Chuchel,
B.A., and Yount, M.E., 1988, Maps showing
aeromagnetic survey and geologic interpretation of
the Ugashik and part of the Karluk quadrangles,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous
Field Studies Map MF-1539-D, 12 p., 2 sheets,
1:250,000.
Childs, J.R., Cooper, A.K., and Wright, A.W., 1981,
Residual magnetic map of Umnak Plateau region,
southwestern Bering Sea: U.S. Geological Survey
Geophysical Investigations Map GP-939, scale
1:1,000,000.
Clayton, J.L., 1993, Composition of Crude Oils
Generated from Coals and Coaly Organic Matter in
Shales: in: Hydrocarbons from Coal, Rice, D.D.,
 and Law, B.E. (eds.), American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 38, p.
185-201.
Clifford, A.C., 1986, African Oil - Past, Present, and
Future: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 40, p. 339-372.
Comer, C.D., Herman, B.M., and Zerwick, S.A.,
Geologic Report for the St. George Basin Planning
Area, Bering Sea, Alaska: Minerals Management
Service, OCS Report, MMS 87-0030, 84 p.
Core Laboratories (Inc.), 1983, Core analyses of
conventional and sidewall cores, North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 well: Analyses performed for
ARCO Exploration company and Industry
Consortium. October 1983. Available in public
well file, Minerals Management Service, 949 E.
36th Ave., Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503.
Craft, B.C., and Hawkins, M.F., 1959, Applied
Petroleum Reservoir Engineering: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 437 p.
Craig, J.D., 1998, Economic Assessment Results: in
Sherwood, K.W., ed., Undiscovered Oil and Gas
Resources, Alaska Federal Offshore (As of January
1995), U.S. Minerals Management Service, OCS
Monograph MMS 98-0054, p. 347-382.
Detterman, R.L., 1990, Correlation of exploratory
wells, Alaska Peninsula: U.S. Geological Survey
Open file Report OF 90-279, 2 plates.
Detterman, R.L., Case, J.E., Wilson, F.J., and Yount,
M.E., 1987, Geologic map of the Ugashik, Bristol
Bay, and western part of Karluk quadrangles,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Map I-1685, 1:250,000.
Detterman, R.L., Case, J.E., Miller, S.W., Wilson,
F.H., and Yount, M.E., 1996, Stratigraphic
framework of the Alaska Peninsula: U.S.
Geological survey Bulletin 1969-A, 74 p.
Detterman, R.L., Miller, T.P., Yount, M.E., and
Wilson, F.J., 1987, Geologic map of the Chignik
and Sutwick Island quadrangles, Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations
Map I-1229, 1:250,000.
Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L, 1980, Stratigraphy,
structure, and economic geology of the Iliamna
quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1368-B, 86 p.
66
Dewey, J.F., and Bird, J.M., 1970, Mountain belts
and the new global tectonics: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 75, no. 14, p. 2625-2647.
Dow, W.G., 1977a, Kerogen studies and geological
interpretations: Journal of Geochemical
Exploration, v. 7, p. 79-99.
Dow, W.G., 1977b, Petroleum source beds on
continental slopes and rises: In: Geology of
Continental Margins, American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Continuing Education
Course, Note series 5, p. D1-D37. Also published
in American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 62, no. 9 (September 1978), p. 1584-
1606.
Dutrow, B.L., 1982, Petrologic description of Amoco
Cathedral River No. 1 Sands: Consultant’s report
available to public as Alaska Geologic Materials
Center (AGMC) Report No. 37, State of Alaska
Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box 772805,
18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River, AK,
99577-2805, 18 p.
Ede, E.L., 2005, The Pebble Project—Extensive
Baseline Environmental Studies for Permitting a
Large Mine in Alaska: Oral presentation given at
noon meeting of the Alaska Association of
Environmental Professionals, 18 March 2005
(Friday), Anchorage, Alaska.
Exlog (Geochemical Laboratory), 1982, Organic
carbon and pyrolysis data: Report of analyses for
total organic carbon and pyrolysis yields for
Amoco Cathedral River 1 well. Available to public
as Alaska Geologic Materials Center (AGMC)
Report No. 2, State of Alaska Geological Materials
Center, P.O. Box 772805, 18205 Fish Hatchery
Road, Eagle River, AK, 99577-2805, 13 p.
Exlog (Exploration Logging Inc. of U.S.A.), 1983,
Geochemical final well report, ARCO Exploration
Company, North Aleutian Shelf C.O.S.T. Well No.
1, September 1982-January 1983: Report to
ARCO Exploration Company and Industry
Consortium by Exlog. Available as Appendix 4 of
this report and in public well file, Minerals
Management Service, 949 E. 36th Ave., Suite 300,
Anchorage, AK 99503, 40 p. Excel spreadsheet of
data provided as Appendix 2 of this report.
Fisher, M.A., and Magoon, L.B., 1982, Geology,
structure, and petroleum potential of the lower
Cook Inlet—Shelikof Strait region, in:
 Hydrocarbon Resource Report for Proposed OCS
Sale Lease Sale 88-Southeastern Alaska, Northern
Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and Shelikof Strait,
Alaska, Bruns, T.R. (ed.), U.S. Geological survey
Open file Report OF 82-928, p. 53-67.
Falvey, D.A., 1974, The development of continental
margins in plate tectonic theory: Australian
Petroleum Exploration Association Journal, v. 14,
p. 95-106.
Finzel, E.S., Reifenstuhl, R., Decker, P.L., and
Ridgway, K.D., 2005, Sedimentology, stratigraphy,
and hydrocarbon reservoir-source rock potential,
using surface and subsurface data, of Tertiary and
Mesozoic strata, Bristol Bay basin and Alaska
Peninsula: State of Alaska, Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys, Preliminary Interpretive
Report PRI 2005-4, July 2005, 67 p.
Franks, S.G., and Hite, D.M., 1980, Controls of
zeolites cementation in Upper Jurassic sandstones,
lower Cook Inlet, Alaska [abs.]: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
64, no. 5, p. 708-709.
Folk, R.L., 1968, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks:
Austin, TX, Hemphill’s Book Store, 170 p.
Galvin, Patrick, 2005, (personal communication),
State of Alaska, Dept. of Natural Resources, e-mail
dated 17 March 2005.
Geochem (Laboratories, Inc.), 1976, Hydrocarbon
source rock evaluation study, organic geochemical
analyses of dry well cuttings, Amoco Production
company Cathedral River Unit No. 1 well, sec. 29-
51S-83W, Cold Bay County, Alaska: Report by
Geochem Laboratories, Inc., 1143-C Brittmore
Road, Houston, Texas 77043, December 1976.
Available to public as Alaska Geologic Materials
Center (AGMC) Report No. 56, State of Alaska
Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box 772805,
18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River, AK,
99577-2805, 17 p.
Geochron (Laboratories, Inc.), 1969, Potassium-
argon determinations, General Petroleum Corp.
Great Basins 1 and 2 wells and Gulf Port Heiden 1
well. Available as Alaska Geological Materials
Center (AGMC) Report No. 38 from Alaska
Geologic Materials Center (AGMC), State of
Alaska Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box
772805, 18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River,
AK, 99577-2805, 3 p.
67
Godson, R.H., 1994, Composite magnetic anomaly
map of Alaska and adjacent offshore areas, 1
sheet, scale 1:2,500,000, in: The Geology of Alaska
(The Geology of North America, Volume G-1),
Plate 10.
Guangming, Z., and Quanheng, Z., 1982, Buried-Hill
oil and gas pools in the North China Basin, in: The
Deliberate Search for the Subtle Trap, Halbouty,
M.T. (ed.), American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 32, p. 317-335.
Haeussler, P.J., Bruhns, R.L., and Pratt, T.L., 2000,
Potential seismic hazards and tectonics of the upper
Cook Inlet basin, Alaska, based on analysis of
Pliocene and younger deformation: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 112, no. 9, p. 1414-
1429.
Hayes, J.B., Harms, J.C., and Wilson, T. Jr., 1976,
Contrasts between braided and meandering stream
deposits, Beluga and Sterling Formations
(Tertiary), Cook Inlet, Alaska, in: Recent and
Ancient Sedimentary Environments in Alaska,
Miller, T.P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Alaska
Geological Society Symposium held April 2-4,
1975, at Anchorage, Alaska, p. J1-J27.
Hite, D.M., 1976, Some sedimentary aspects of the
Kenai Group, Cook Inlet, Alaska, in: Recent and
Ancient Sedimentary Environments in Alaska,
Miller, T.P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Alaska
Geological Society Symposium held April 2-4,
1975, at Anchorage, Alaska, p. I1-I23.
Hite, D.M., 2004, BBNC – Hydrocarbon Potential of
Native Lands in the Bristol Bay Area, Southern
Alaska: Consultant Report to Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, on compact disc (contact
tsmith@bbnc.net), 80 p.
Huang, W-Y., and Meinschein, W.G., 1979, Sterols
as ecological indicators: Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v. 43, p. 739-745.
Hunt, J. M., 1979, Petroleum Geochemistry and
Geology: W.H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 617 p.
Imlay, R.W., and Detterman, R.L., 1973, Jurassic
paleobiogeography of Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 801, 34 p.
Johnsson, M.J., and Howell, D.G., 1996, Thermal
maturity of sedimentary basins in Alaska—an
overview, in: Thermal Evolution of Sedimentary
 Basins in Alaska, Johnsson, M.J., and Howell, D.G.
(eds.), U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2142, p. 1-
10, Plate 1.
Lee, W.H.K., and Uyeda, S., 1965, Review of heat
flow data: in: Terrestrial Heat, American
Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph 8, p.
87-190.
Levine, J.R., 1993, Coalification: The Evolution of
coal as source rock and reservoir rock for oil and
gas, in: Hydrocarbons from Coal, Rice, D.D., and
Law, B.E. (eds.), American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology 38, p. 39-
78.
Lonsdale, Peter, 1988, Paleogene history of the Kula
plate: Offshore evidence and onshore implications:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p.
733-754.
Lopatin, N.V., 1971, Temperature and geologic time
as factors in Coalification (in Russian): Akad.
Nauk. SSSR Isv. Ser. Geol. No. 3, p. 95-106.
Magoon, L.B., 1986, Present Day Geothermal
Gradient: in: Geologic Studies of the Lower Cook
Inlet COST No. 1 Well, Alaska Outer Continental
Shelf, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1596, p. 41-
46.
Magoon, L.B., 1994, Tuxedni-Hemlock petroleum
system in Cook Inlet, Alaska, U.S.A., in: The
Petroleum System—From Source to Trap, Magoon,
L.B., and Dow, W.G. (eds.), American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 60, p. 359-370.
Magoon, L.B., and Anders, D.E., 1992, Oil-to-
source-rock correlation using carbon-isotopic data
and biological marker compounds, Cook Inlet-
Alaska Peninsula, Alaska, in: Biological Markers
in Sediments and Petroleum, Moldowan, J.M.,
Albrecht, P., and Philp, R.P. (eds.), Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, p. 241-274.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L., and Egbert, R.M.,
1976, Map showing geology, wildcat wells,
Tertiary plant fossil localities, K-Ar age dates, and
petroleum operations, Cook Inlet area, Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Series, Map I-1019, 3 sheets incl.
map, 1:250,000.
Marlow, M. S., and Cooper, A. K., 1980, Mesozoic
and Cenozoic structural trends under southern
68
Bering Sea shelf: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 64, p. 2139-2155.
Marzi, R., B. E. Torkelson and R. K. Olson, 1993, A
revised carbon preference index. Org. Geochem., v.
20, pp. 1301-1306.
McCain, W.D., Jr., 1973, The Properties of
Petroleum Fluids: The Petroleum Publishing
Company, Tulsa, OK, USA, 325 p.
McKenzie, D.P., 1978, Some remarks on the
development of sedimentary basins: Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, v. 40, p. 25-32.
Mickey, M.B., Haga, H., Boettcher, R.S., and Kling,
S.A., 2005, Northwestern Alaska Peninsula—
Bristol Bay Biostratigraphy Study: M.C. Job No.
25-104, June 2005 (Published by Alaska State Div.
of Oil and Gas at their website,
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publica
tions/akpeninsula/biostrat.htm, August 2005), 286
p.
Molenaar, C.M., 1996a, Thermal maturity patterns
and geothermal gradients on the Alaska Peninsula,
in: Thermal Evolution of Sedimentary Basins in
Alaska, Johnsson, M.J., and Howell, D.G. (eds.),
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2142, p. 11-20.
Molenaar, C.M., 1996b, Alaska Peninsula: in: Digital
Map Data, Text, and Graphical Images in Support
of the 1995 National Assessment of United States
Oil and Gas Resources, U.S. Geological Survey
Digital Data Series DDS-35, file “PROV03.RTF”,
p. 2-5, tbl. 1).
Moore, B.J., and Sigler, S., 1987, Analyses of natural
gases, 1917-85: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, Information Circular 9129.
Moore, J.C., and Connelly, W., 1979, Tectonic
history of the continental margin of southwestern
Alaska: Late Triassic to earliest Tertiary: in: The
Relationship of Plate Tectonics to Alaskan Geology
and Resources, Alaska Geological Society
Symposium Proceedings, p. H1-H29.
Newendorp, P.D., 1975, Decision analysis for
petroleum exploration: The Petroleum Publishing
Company, Tulsa, OK, 688 p.
O&GJ (Oil and Gas Journal), 2003, Vietnam: in
Exploration and Development, Oil and Gas
Journal, August 18, 2003, p. 42.
Palmer, A.R., 1998, Geological Society of America
geologic time scale: Boulder, Colorado,
Geological Society of America, 1 p.
P’An, C.H., 1982, Petroleum in basement rocks:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1597-1643.
Parker, J., and Newman, R., 1998, North Aleutian
Basin Assessment Province: in Sherwood, K.W.,
ed., Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska
Federal Offshore (As of January 1995), U.S.
Minerals Management Service, OCS Monograph
MMS 98-0054, p. 251-256.
Peters, K.E., 1986, Guidelines for evaluating
petroleum source rock using programmed
pyrolysis: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 70, no. 3, p. 318-329.
Peters, K.E., and Moldowan, J.M., 1993, The
Biomarker Guide—Interpreting Molecular Fossils
in Petroleum and Ancient Sediments: Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 363 p.
Post, P.J., Harrison, P.F., Whittle, G.L., and Hunt,
J.D., 2001, Mesozoic ultra-deep water potential of
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico—conceptual play
development and analysis, in: Gulf Coast Section
of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists (SEPM) Foundation, 21st Annual
Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, p. 35-69.
Reed, B.L., and Lanphere, M.A., 1972, The Alaska-
Aleutian Range batholith showing potassium-argon
ages of the plutonic rocks: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-372, 2
sheets, 1: 1,000,000.
Reed, B.L., Miesch, A.T., and Lanphere, M.A., 1983,
Plutonic rocks of Jurassic age in the Alaska-
Aleutian Range batholith: geochemical variations
and polarity: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 94, p. 1232-1240.
Reifenstuhl, R., 2005, Bristol Bay, Frontier Basin,
Alaska Peninsula—Hydrocarbon Resources,
Petroleum Reservoir Characterization, and Source
Potential: Alaska Geological Society Newsletter,
v. 35, no. 9, May 2005, p. 1-3.
Riehle, J.R., Detterman, R.L., Yount, M.E., and
Miller, J.W., 1993, Geologic map of the Mount
Katmai quadrangle and adjacent parts of the
Naknek and Afognak quadrangles, Alaska: U.S.
69
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations
Map I-2204, 1:250,000.
Robertson Research (Inc.), 1982, Total organic
carbon and Rock-Eval pyrolysis of seventeen
samples from the Cathedral River well: Robertson
Research (U.S.) Inc., Report 823-7B, prepared for
Cities Service Co., by Robertson Research, 16730
Hedgecroft, Suite 206, Houston, Texas 77050-
3697, April 1982. Available to public as Alaska
Geologic Materials Center (AGMC) Reports Nos.
12 and 64, “Total Organic Carbon, Rock-Eval
Pyrolysis and Visual Kerogen/Vitrinite
Reflectance, Amoco Cathedral River Unit 1”, State
of Alaska Geological Materials Center, P.O. Box
772805, 18205 Fish Hatchery Road, Eagle River,
AK, 99577-2805, 13 p.
Robertson Research (Inc.), 1983, Geochemical
analysis of the North Aleutian Shelf, COST No. 1
well, Alaska: Report to ARCO Exploration
Company and Industry Consortium by W.G. Dow,
Robertson Research (U.S.) Inc., 16730 Hedgecroft,
Suite 306, Houston, TX 77060-3697. Available as
Appendix 5 of this report and in public well file,
Minerals Management Service, 949 E. 36th Ave.,
Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503, 316 p. Excel
spreadsheet of data provided as Appendix 2 of this
report.
Rose, P.R., 1992, Chance of success and its use in
petroleum exploration: in: The Business of
Petroleum Exploration, Steinmetz, R. (ed.),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Handbook of
Petroleum Geology, p. 71-86.
Schlumberger (Ltd.), 1991, Log Interpretation
Charts: Schlumberger Educational Services,
Schlumberger Limited, 277 Park Ave., New York,
NY, 10017, 171 p.
Shanmugam, G., 1985, Significance of coniferous
rain forests and related organic matter in generating
commercial quantities of oil, Gippsland basin,
Australia: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 69, no. 8, p. 1241-1254.
Sherwood, K.W., and Craig, J.D., 2001, Prospects for
development of Alaska natural gas: a review:
MMS Report issued as Compact Disc (Ph: 907-
271-6060 to order free copy) and posted on website
at http://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/reports/rereport.htm;
January 2001, 135 p.
Shurr, G.W., and Ridgley, J.L., 2002,
Unconventional shallow biogenic gas systems:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 86, no. 11, p. 1939-1970.
Sladen, C., 1997, Exploring the lake basins of south
and southeast Asia, in: Petroleum Geology of
Southeast Asia, Matthews, S.J., and Murphy, R.W.
(eds.), Geological Society Special Publication No.
126, p. 49-76.
Standings, M.B., and Katz, D.L., 1942, Density of
Natural Gases: Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE-AIME) Transactions, v. 146, p. 150.
Teledyne Isotopes, 1983, K-Ar determinations for 3
samples from the North Aleutian shelf COST 1
well: Report to ARCO Exploration company
prepared by Teledyne Isotopes, 50 Van Buren
Ave., Westwood, NJ 07675, 11 April 1983.
Available in public well file, Minerals
Management Service, 949 E. 36th Ave., Suite 300,
Anchorage, AK 99503.
Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., 1984, Petroleum
Formation and Occurrence: Springer Verlag, New
York, NY, 699 p.
Turner, R.F., McCarthy, C.M., Lynch, M.B., Hoose,
P.J., Martin, G.C., Larson, J.A., Flett, T.O.,
Sherwood, K.W., and Adams, A.J., 1988,
Geological and operational summary, North
Aleutian shelf COST No. 1 well, Bering Sea,
Alaska: Minerals Management Service OCS
Report MMS 88-0089, 266 p.
Walker, K.T., McGeary, S.E., and Klemperer, S.L.,
2003, Tectonic Evolution of the Bristol Bay basin,
southeast Bering Sea: Constraints from seismic
reflection and potential field data: Tectonics, v. 22,
no. 5, p.4-1 to 4-19.
Wang, J., Newton, C.R., and Dunne, L., 1988, Late
Triassic transition from biogenic to arc
sedimentation on the Peninsular terrane, Puale Bay,
70
Alaska Peninsula: Geological Society of America
Bulletin v. 100, no. 9, p. 1466-1478.
Waples, D.W., 1980, Time and temperature in
petroleum formation—application of Lopatin’s
method to petroleum exploration: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
64, no. 6, p. 916-926.
Waples, D.W., and Machihara, T., 1991, Biomarkers
for Geologists; A Practical Guide to the
Application of Steranes and Triterpanes in
Petroleum Geology: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Methods in Exploration
Series, No. 9, ISBN 0-89181-659-3, 91 p.
White, D.A., 1989, Prospect and Play Assessment:
OGCI Training Course Notes, Tulsa, OK.
White, D.A., 1993, Geologic risking guide for
prospects and plays: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 77, no. 12, p.
2048-2061.
White, N., and McKenzie, D., 1988, Formation of the
“steer’s head” geometry of sedimentary basins by
differential stretching of the crust and mantle:
Geology, v. 16, p. 250-253.
Wilson, F.H., Detterman, R.L., Miller, J.W., and
Case, J.E., 1995, Geologic map of the Port Moller,
Stepovak Bay, and Simeonof Island quadrangles,
Alaska Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2272,
1:250,000.
Worrall, D.M., 1991, Tectonic history of the Bering
Sea and the evolution of Tertiary strike-slip basins
of the Bering Sea: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 257, 120 p.
Zumberge, J., 1987, Prediction of source rock
characteristics based on terpane biomarkers in
crude oils: A multivariate statistical approach.
Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 51, p.1625-1637.
Table 1: North Aleutian Basin and Alaska Peninsula Exploration Wells, 1903-1983
Year Kelly Bushing Elevation; Age and Name, Total Depth; Fm., Age and Name,
Operator and Well Name Location
Completed Surface Formation Formation at Total Depth
Pacific Oil and Commercial Pacific Oil No. 1 1903 NW/4 Sec. 3, T29S, R40W Ground level(?); M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. 1421 feet; M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm.
J.H. Costello Costello No. 1 1903 NW/4 Sec. 10,T29S, R40W Ground level(?); M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. 728 feet;M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm.
Pacific Oil and Commercial Pacific Oil No. 2 1904 SE/4 Sec. 3, T29S, R40W Ground level(?);M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. 1542 feet;M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm.
J.H. Costello Costello No. 2 1904 SE/4 Sec. 10, T29S, R40W Ground level(?);M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. TD Unknown;M. Jurassic, Shelikof? Fm.
Standard Lathrop No. 1 1923 SE/4 Sec. 17, T29S, R43W Ground level(?); U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 500 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Tidewater Associated Finnegan No. 1 1923 NE/4 Sec. 30, T29S, R43W Ground level(?); U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 560 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Standard Oil McNally No. 1 1925 NW/4 Sec. 29, T29S, R43W Ground level(?); U. Jurassic Naknek Fm. 510 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Tidewater Associated Alaska No.1 1925 SW/4 Sec.20, T29S, R43W Ground level, 694 ft; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 3033 feet; M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm.
Standard Lee No. 1 1926 SW/4 Sec.20, T29S, R43W Ground level, 764 ft; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 5053 feet; M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm.
Standard, et. al. Grammer No. 1 1940 Sec. 10, T30S, R41W 375 feet; M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. 7596 feet; Lower Jurassic, Talkeetna Fm.?
Humble-Shell Bear Creek Unit No. 1 1959 Sec 36, T29S, R41W 927 feet; M. Jurassic, Shelikof Fm. 14,374 feet; Triassic, Kamishak Fm.
General Petroleum Great Basins No. 1 1959 Sec. 2, T27S, R48W 231 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 11,080 feet; Mesozoic Granitic Basement
General Petroleum Great Basins No. 2 1959 Sec. 35, T25S, R50W 105 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 8865 feet; Mesozoic Granitic Basement
Pure Canoe Bay No. 1 1961 Sec. 8, T54S, R78W 1221 feet; U. Cretaceous, Hoodoo Fm. 6642 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Richfield Wide Bay Unit No. 1 1963 Sec. 5, T33S, R44W 54 feet; M. Jurassic, Kialagvik Fm. 12,568 feet; Triassic, Kamishak Fm.
Gulf Sandy River Federal No. 1 1963 Sec. 10, T46S, R70W 235 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 13,068 feet; Oligocene, Stepovak Fm.
Great Basins Ugashik No. 1 1966 Sec. 8, T32S, R52W 142 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 9476 feet; Oligocene, Meshik Fm.
Cities Service Painter Creek No. 1 1967 Sec. 14, T35S, R51W 394 feet; Pliocene, Milky River Fm. 7912 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Pan American David River No. 1 & No. 1-A 1969 Sec. 12, T50S, R80W 70 feet; Pliocene, Milky River Fm. 13,769 feet; (U. Cretaceous, Chignik Fm.?)
Pan American Hoodo Lake No. 1 1970 Sec. 21, T50S, R76W 141 feet; Pliocene, Milky River Fm. 8048 feet; Oligocene, Stepovak Fm.
Pan American Hoodoo Lake No. 2 1970 Sec. 35, T50S, R76W 345 feet; Pliocene, Milky River Fm. 11,234 feet; U.Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Gulf Port Heiden Unit No. 1 1972 Sec. 20, T37S, R59W 36 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 15,015 feet; Oligocene, Meshik Fm.
Amoco Cathedral River No. 1 1974 Sec. 29, T51S, R83W 178 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 14,301 feet; Triassic, Kamishak Fm.
Phillips Big River No. A-1 1977 Sec 15, T49S, R68W 281 feet; Oligocene, Stepovak Fm. 11,371 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm.
Chevron Koniag No. 1 1981 Sec. 2, T38S, R49W 62 feet; U. Jurassic, Naknek Fm. 10,905 feet; Triassic, Kamishak Fm.
Amoco Becharof No. 1 1985 Sec. 15, T28S, R48W 220 feet; Quaternary, Un-named Alluvium 9022 feet; Mesozoic Granitic Basement
Offshore Wells
Arco North Aleutian Basin COST No. 1 1983 56.724o N. Lat., 171.976o W. Long. 74 feet; Quaternary-Pleistocene, Marine Mud 17,155 feet; Eocene - Tolstoi
Table adapted from Molenaar (1996b, tbl. 1)

71
Table 2: Summary of Selected Extract Data, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Extract Data: Oil Show Interval 15,300-16,800 ft bkb
Spl. NSO + Del13C Del13C Pristane/ Pristane/ Phytane/
Spl. No. Depth/ Interval SAT % ARO %
Type ASPH % SAT ARO Phytane n-C17 n-C18
16006-16029 &
MMSAK2003-1 Core 6.82 1.16 92.02 -28.5 -27.3 2.65 0.45 0.19
16701.2-16720
MMSAK2003-2 Cuttings 15700-16800 56.21 9.26 34.53 -28.0 -26.9 3.75 0.83 0.23
RR-1 Core 15354.6 2.6 43.9 53.5 NA NA 9.30 1.31 0.15
RR-2 Core 15368.5 9.9 37.3 52.8 NA NA 6.54 1.26 0.19
RR-3 Core 16009.3 19.1 33.7 47.2 NA NA 5.00 0.71 0.15
RR-4 Core 16029 31.3 32 36.7 NA NA 3.85 0.73 0.20
RR-5 Core 16703.7 21.4 57.4 21.2 NA NA 2.78 0.47 0.17
RR-6 Core 16714.6 14.8 25 60.2 NA NA 2.14 0.48 0.22
RR-7 Core 16719.6 37.4 21.6 41 NA NA 2.27 0.36 0.16
MMSAK: Baseline-DGSI for Minerals Management Service, 2003
RR: Roberston Research for ARCO and COST Well Consortium, 1983
Thermal maturity of show interval = 0.78% to 1.04% vitrinite reflectance

72
Table 3: Play 1, G R A SP Play D ata Form (M inerals M anagem ent Service-Alaska R egional O ffice)
Basin: N orth Aleutian Basin Assessor(s): K.W . Sherw ood, D. C om er, J. Larson D ate: D ecem ber 2004
Play Num ber: 1 Play N am e: Bear Lake-Stepovak (O ligocene-M iocene)
Play UAI N um ber: AAAAA H AB

Play Area: 14,820m i 2 (9.5 m illion acres) Play D epth R ange: 2,000-10,000 feet (m ean = 6,000 ft)
Reservoir T herm al M aturity: 0.25% -0.48% R o Expected O il G ravity: 35 O API
Play W ater D epth Range: 15-300 feet (m ean = 250 ft)

PO O LS M odule (Volum es of Pools, Acre-Feet)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel Input* 3227 4249 10661 13794/11325 26750 92660
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel O utput** 989 3408 4394 6710 10825 13560/10075 17299 22441 26058 33526 40000 44000 88280
Fill Fraction (Fraction of Area Filled) 0.17 0.28 0.3 0.34 0.4 0.41/0.10 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.6 0.65 0.69 1
Productive Area of Pool (acres) 247 1310 1706 2638 4299 5742/4972 7173 9421 11081 14063 17500 21000 51718
Pay T hickness (feet) 3 21 29 52 98 151/180*** 184 258 324 340 375 400 550
* m odel fit to prospect area data in BESTFIT *** original fit to Cook Inlet data
** output from @ R ISK after aggregation with fill fraction

M PR O M odule (N um bers of Pools)

Input Play Level Chance 0.72 Prospect Level Chance 0.26 Exploration Chance 0.1872
O utput Play Level Chance 0.72

R isk M odel Play Chance Petroleum System Factors Prospect C hance

0.8 Seal (no regional seal over reservoir sequence) 0.5
0.9 Source (m ainly T ertiary coals and T ype III shales) 0.65
M igration (regional shale seal betw een source & reservoir) 0.8

Fractile F99 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Num bers of Prospects in Play 24 28 30 32 38 39/7.95 43 46 49 52 56 60 80
Num bers of Pools in Play 8 7.30/5.40 11 13 14 15 17 19 34
Zero Pools at F72.00
M inim um Num ber of Pools 4 (F70) M ean N um ber of Pools 7.3 M axim um N um ber of Pools 34

PO O LS /PS R K /P SU M M odules (Play R esources)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
O il R ecovery Factor (bbl/acre-foot) 89 212 247 319 424 465/209 564 657 728 848 1008 1130 1516
G as Recov ery Factor (M cfg/acre-foot) 279 578 657 812 1029 1093/399 1304 1480 1613 1832 2114 2327 2584
G as O il R atio (Sol'n G as)(cf/bbl) 56 162 195 267 376 426/220 531 638 723 871 1073 1100 1110
Condensate Y ield ((bbl/M m cfg) 1 14 17 21 25 25/7 29 32 34 35 37 39 50
Pool Size D istribution Statistics from PO O LS (1,000 BO E): μ (m u)= 11.439 σ 2 (sigm a squared)= 1.628 R andom N um ber G enerator Seed= 297,150

BO E C onversion Factor (cf/bbl) 5620 Probability Any Pool C ontains B oth O il and Free G as (G as C ap) 0.1
Probability Any Pool is 100% O il 0.1 Fraction of Pool Volum e G as-B earing in O il Pools w ith G as C ap 0.9
Probability Any Pool is 100% G as 0.8

73
T a b le 4 : P la y 2 , G R A S P P la y D a ta F o rm (M in e ra ls M a n a g e m e n t S e rvic e -A la s k a R e g io n a l O ffic e )
B a s in : N o rth A le u tia n B a s in A s s e s s o r(s ): K .W . S h e rw o o d , D . C o m er, J. L ars o n D ate : D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4
P la y N u m b e r: 2 P la y N a m e : T o ls to i (E o c e n e -O lig o c e n e )
P la y U A I N u m b e r: A A A A A H A C

2
P la y A re a : 1 0 ,8 9 0 m i (7 m illio n a c re s ) P la y D e p th R a n g e : 4 ,0 0 0 to 2 0 ,0 0 0 fe e t (m e a n = 1 2 ,0 0 0 ft)
R e s e rv o ir T h e rm a l M a tu rity: 0 .3 0 % -1 .6 5 % R o E x p e c te d O il G ra v ity : 3 5 O A P I
P la y W a te r D e p th R a n g e : 1 5 -3 0 0 fe e t (m e a n = 2 5 0 ft)

P O O L S M o d u le (V o lu m e s o f P o o ls , A c re -F e e t)
F ra c tile F100 F 95 F90 F75 F50 M e a n /S td . D e v . F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01
P ro s p e c t A re a (a c re s )- M o d e l In p u t* 6 7 8 7 (a c t) 6 5 6 7 (fit) 1 1 16 9 15 9 2 5 /9 7 9 0 28 0 2 8
P ro s p e c t A re a (a c re s )- M o d e l O u tp u t** 1518 5490 6647 9321 13549 1 5 5 5 5 /8 5 4 7 19702 23776 27111 33179 36000 38000
F ill F ra c tio n (F ra c tio n o f A re a F ille d ) 0 .1 6 0 .2 8 0 .3 0 .3 4 0 .4 0 .4 1 /0 .1 0 0 .4 8 0 .5 1 0 .5 3 0 .6 0 .6 5 0 .6 9
P ro d u c tiv e A re a o f P o o l (a c re s ) 455 2031 2509 3631 5447 6 4 4 2 /3 9 6 0 8173 10082 11572 14470 16000 17000
P a y T h ic k n e s s (fe e t) 31 49 53 60 69 7 1 /1 7 80 86 91 98 107 113
* m o d e l fit to p ro s p e c t a re a d a ta in B E S T F IT
** o u tp u t fro m @ R IS K a fte r a g g re g a tio n w ith fill fra c tio n

M P R O M o d u le (N u m b e rs o f P o o ls )
In p u t P la y L e v e l C h a n c e 1 P ro s p e c t L e v e l C h a n c e 0 .1 4 0 4 E x p lo ra tio n C h a n c e 0 .1 4 0 4
O u tp u t P la y L e v e l C h a n c e 0 .9 9 0 6

R is k M o d e l P la y C h a n c e P e tro le u m S y s te m F a c to rs P ro s p e c t C h a n c e
M in o r g a s p o o ls te s te d (9 0 M c fg /d ) in B e c h a ro f L a k e 1 w e ll
R e s e rv o ir (im p e rm e a b le th ro u g h m o s t o f s e q u e n c e ) 0 .2 1 6
S o u rc e (m a in ly T e rtia ry c o a ls a n d T yp e III s h a le s ) 0 .6 5

F ra c tile F99 F 95 F90 F75 F50 M e a n /S td . D e v . F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01
N u m b e rs o f P ro s p e c ts in P la y 16 20 23 30 40 4 3 .6 5 /1 9 .7 2 51 60 65 75 90 100

N u m b e rs o f P o o ls in P la y 1 2 2 4 6 6 .1 3 /3 .6 0 8 9 11 12 15 18

Z e ro P o o ls a t F 9 9 .0 6
M in im u m N u m b e r o f P o o ls 1 (F 9 9 .0 0 ) M e a n N u m b e r o f P o o ls 6 .1 3 M a x im u m N u m b e r o f P o o ls 44

P O O L S /P S R K /P S U M M o d u le s (P la y R e s o u rc e s )
F ra c tile F100 F 95 F90 F75 F50 M e a n /S td . D e v . F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01
O il R e c o v e ry F a c to r (b b l/a c re -fo o t) 25 57 75 113 178 2 0 3 /1 1 8 266 322 364 430 480 510
G a s R e c o v e ry F a c to r (M c fg /a c re -fo o t) 18 351 433 630 921 9 9 7 /4 9 7 1285 1509 1657 1933 2100 2300
G a s O il R a tio (S o l'n G a s )(c f/b b l) 56 162 195 267 376 4 2 6 /2 2 0 531 638 723 871 1073 1100
C o n d e n s a te Y ie ld ((b b l/M m c fg ) 1 14 17 21 25 2 5 /1 7 29 32 34 35 37 39
P o o l S iz e D is trib u tio n S ta tis tic s fro m P O O L S (1 ,0 0 0 B O E ): μ (m u )= 1 1 .0 7 9 σ 2 (sig m a s q u a re d )= 0 .8 2 8 R a n d o m N u m b e r G e n e ra to r S e e d = 6 6 8 ,0 7 6

B O E C o n v e rs io n F a c to r (c f/b b l) 5620 P ro b a b ility A n y P o o l C o n ta in s B o th O il a n d F re e G a s (G a s C a p ) 0 .1

P ro b a b ility A n y P o o l is 1 0 0 % O il 0 .1 F ra c tio n o f P o o l V o lu m e G a s -B e a rin g in O il P o o ls w ith G a s C a p 0 .9
P ro b a b ility A n y P o o l is 1 0 0 % G a s 0 .8

74
Table 5: Play 3, GRASP Play Data Form (M inerals M anagem ent Service-Alaska Regional Office)
Basin: North Aleutian Basin Assessor(s): K.W . Sherw ood, D. Com er, J. Larson Date: Decem ber 2004
Play Num ber: 3 Play Nam e: Black Hills Uplift - Am ak Basin (Eocene-M iocene)
Play UAI Num ber: AAAAA HAD

Play Area: 6,990 m i2 (4.5 m illion acres) Play Depth Range: 2,000-12,500 feet (m ostly 2,000-5,000 feet)
Reservoir Therm al M aturity: 0.23%-2.00% Ro (m ostly 0.23%-0.31% Ro) Expected Oil Gravity: 35 O API
Play W ater Depth Range: 15-700 feet (m ean = 350 ft)

POOLS M odule (Volum es of Pools, Acre-Feet)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel Input* 2667 (act) 2350 (fit) 5916 25230/48696 57316 133385
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel Output** 509 1643 2471 4869 11201 19995/23424 25426 38733 49245 70155 78000 82000 133124
Fill Fraction (Fraction of Area Filled) 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.17/0.08 0.2 0.26 0.28 0.33 0.4 0.45 1
Productive Area of Pool (acres) 42 226 343 706 1734 3554/5194 4054 6211 8543 12700 17000 20000 56488
Pay Thickness (feet) 3 21 29 52 98 151/180* 184 258 324 340 375 400 550
* m odel fit to prospect area data in BESTFIT *** original fit to Cook Inlet data
** output from @ RISK after aggregation with fill fraction

MPRO M odule (Num bers of Pools)

Input Play Level Chance 0.42 Prospect Level Chance 0.25 Exploration Chance 0.105
Output Play Level Chance 0.4128

Risk M odel Play Chance Petroleum System Factors Prospect Chance

0.6 M igration (lengthy, highly-faulted path from Tertiary source) 0.5
0.7 Seal (no regional seal over reservoir) 0.5

Fractile F99 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Num bers of Prospects in Play 10 11 12 13 14 14.61/1.83 15 16 17 17.5 17.7 18 20
Num bers of Pools in Play 1.53/2.12 3 4 5 6 7 7 13
Zero Pools at F41.28
M inim um Num ber of Pools 1 (F40.00) M ean Num ber of Pools 1.53 M axim um Num ber of Pools 13

POOLS/PSRK/PSUM Modules (Play Resources)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Oil Recovery Factor (bbl/acre-foot) 42 129 158 221 311 343/177 427 500 558 644 800 960 1300
Gas Recovery Factor (M cfg/acre-foot) 8 441 531 686 873 888/302 1074 1194 1271 1389 1450 1550 1963
Gas O il Ratio (Sol'n Gas)(cf/bbl) 56 162 195 267 376 426/220 531 638 723 871 1073 1100 1110
Condensate Yield ((bbl/M m cfg) 1 14 17 21 25 25/7 29 32 34 35 37 39 50
Pool Size Distribution Statistics from POOLS (1,000 BO E): μ (m u)= 10.662 σ 2 (sigm a squared)= 2.666 Random Num ber Generator Seed= 354,412

BOE Conversion Factor (cf/bbl) 5620 Probability Any Pool Contains Both O il and Free Gas (Gas Cap) 0.4
Probability Any Pool is 100% Oil 0.4 Fraction of Pool Volum e G as-Bearing in Oil Pools w ith Gas Cap 0.5
Probability Any Pool is 100% Gas 0.2

75
Table 6: Play 4, GRASP Play Data Form (Minerals Management Service-Alaska Regional Office)
Basin: North Aleutian Basin Assessor(s): K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson Date: December 2004
Play Number: 4 Play Name: Milky River Biogenic Gas (Plio-Pleistocene)
Play UAI Number: AAAAA HAE

Play Area: 50,706 mi2 (32.45 million acres) Play Depth Range: 500-3,000 feet
Reservoir Thermal Maturity: 0.20%-0.26% Ro Expected Oil Gravity: 35 O API
Play Water Depth Range: 15-700 feet

POOLS Module (Volumes of Pools, Acre-Feet)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 Mean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Prospect Area (acres)
Fill Fraction (Fraction of Area Filled)
Play 4 Not Quantified; Assessed to Have Negligible Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Biogenic Gas Resources
Productive Area of Pool (acres)
Pay Thickness (feet)

MPRO Module (Numbers of Pools)

Input Play Level Chance 0 Prospect Level Chance 0 Exploration Chance 0
Output Play Level Chance

Risk Model Play Chance Petroleum System Factors Prospect Chance

0 Gas recoverability (low pressure; water production) 0
0 Seal (unconsolidated mud) 0
0 Reservoir (poor continuity) 0
Charge (No Structured Fetch to Potential Traps)

Fractile F99 F95 F90 F75 F50 Mean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Numbers of Prospects in Play
No Identified Prospects
Numbers of Pools in Play

Minimum Number of Pools 0 Mean Number of Pools 0 Maximum Number of Pools 0

POOLS/PSRK/PSUM Modules (Play Resources)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 Mean/Std. Dev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Oil Recovery Factor (bbl/acre-foot)
Gas Recovery Factor (Mcfg/acre-foot)
Play 4 Not Quantified; Assessed to Have Negligible Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Biogenic Gas Resources
Gas Oil Ratio (Sol'n Gas)(cf/bbl)
Condensate Yield ((bbl/Mmcfg)
Pool Size Distribution Statistics from POOLS (1,000 BOE): μ (mu)= NA σ 2 (sigma squared)= NA Random Number Generator Seed= 255,476

BOE Conversion Factor (cf/bbl) 5620 Probability Any Pool Contains Both Oil and Free Gas (Gas Cap) 0
Probability Any Pool is 100% Oil 0 Fraction of Pool Volume Gas-Bearing in Oil Pools with Gas Cap NA
Probability Any Pool is 100% Gas 1

76
Table 7: P lay 5, G R A S P P lay D ata Form (M inerals M anagem ent S ervice-Alaska R egional O ffice)
B asin : N orth Aleutian B asin Assesso r(s): K .W . S herw oo d, D . C om er, J. Larso n D ate: D ecem b er 2004
P lay N um b er: 5 Play N am e: M eso zoic D efo rm ed Sedim entary R ocks (T riassic-C retaceou s)
P lay U AI N u m b er: AAAAA H AF

P lay Area: 5,040 m i 2 (3.2 m illio n acres) Play D epth R an ge: 2,000 to 15,000 feet (m ean = 8,000 ft)
R eservo ir T herm al M atu rity: 0.6% to 2.0% R o Expected O il G ravity: 35 O API
Play W ater D ep th R an ge: 15-700 feet (m ean = 350 ft)

P O O LS M odule (V olum es of P ools, Acre-Feet)

F ractile F100 F 95 F90 F 75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F 25 F15 F 10 F 05 F02 F 01 F00
P ro sp ect Area (acres)-M o del Inp ut* 7000 10415 39621 68223/95634 150718 147000
Prospect Area (acres)-M o del O u tpu t** 1024 6793 9768 18402 35028 44767/33824 63167 82991 97444 116497 120000 125000 146550
F ill Fractio n (Fraction of Area Filled) 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.11/0.05 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.2 0.23 0.25 0.5
P ro du ctive Area of Poo l (acres) 93 595 902 1736 3478 5004/4766 6596 9087 10687 13683 17000 19000 43443
P ay T hickness (feet) 18 47 55 73 100 113/60 137 162 182 215 260 295 564
* m odel fit to prospect area data in BES TF IT
** output from @ R ISK after aggregation w ith fill fraction

M P R O M odule (N um bers of P ools)

In pu t Play L evel C h ance 0.4 Prospect Lev el C h an ce 0.2304 Exploration C hance 0.09216
O utp ut Play Level C han ce 0.3925

R isk M o del Play C h ance Petroleu m System F acto rs Prospect C hance

0.5 R eserv o ir (w idesp read early zeolitization ) 0.6
0.8 T im in g o f m igration (if early, n o trap s; if late, no p orosity) 0.6
T rap in tegrity (erosio nal b reach in g and fault d isru ption ) 0.8
P reserv ation (d en ud atio n to shallow depth s/bio deg radatio n of petro leum
0.8
accum u lation s in M eso zoic ro cks)

F ractile F99 F 95 F90 F 75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F 25 F15 F 10 F 05 F02 F 01 F00

N um b ers o f Prospects in Play 11 12 13 14 15 15.56/1.76 16 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 22
N um b ers o f Po ols in Play 1.43/2.06 3 4 5 6 7 7 13
Z ero Pools at F39.25
M inim u m N um ber of Poo ls 2 (F 35) M ean N u m ber o f Po ols 1.43 M axim u m N um b er of Poo ls 13

P O O LS /P S R K /P S U M M odules (P lay R esources)

F ractile F100 F 95 F90 F 75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F 25 F15 F 10 F 05 F02 F 01 F00
O il R eco very F acto r (bb l/acre-fo ot) 1 17 21 30 43 47/25 59 69 77 89 105 120 218
G as R eco v ery F actor (M cfg /acre-foo t) N o Free G as
G as O il R atio (So l'n G as)(cf/bb l) 56 162 195 267 376 426/220 531 638 723 871 1073 1100 1110
C on densate Y ield ((b bl/M m cfg) N o Free G as

P oo l Size D istrib ution S tatistics fro m P O O L S (1,000 B O E): μ (m u )= 9.564 σ 2 (sigm a squ ared )= 1.609 R and om N u m b er G enerator S eed = 458,844

B O E C o nv ersio n Facto r (cf/b b l) 5620 Prob ab ility An y Poo l C o ntain s B o th O il and F ree G as (G as C ap ) 0
P ro bability Any Po ol is 100% O il 1 F ractio n o f Po ol Volu m e G as-B earin g in O il P oo ls w ith G as C ap 0
P ro bability Any Po ol is 100% G as 0

77
Table 8: Play 6, G R A SP Play D ata Form (M inerals M anagem ent Service-Alaska R egional O ffice)
B asin: North Aleutian Basin Assessor(s): K .W . Sherw ood, D . C om er, J. Larson Date: Decem ber 2004
Play Num ber: 6 Play Nam e: M esozoic B uried G ranitic H ills (Jurassic-C retaceous M agm atic R ocks)
Play UAI Num ber: AAAAA HAG

Play Area: 46,810 m i 2 (30 m illion acres) Play D epth R ange: 6,000-12,000 feet (m ean = 9,000 ft)
R eservoir T herm al M aturity: Fractured G ranite Reservoir Expected O il G ravity: 35 O API
(0.34% -0.60% Ro projected from depth range) Play W ater D epth R ange: 15-400 feet (m ean = 300 ft)

P O O LS M odule (V olum es of Pools, Acre-Feet)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel Input* 4000 5537 13119 16454/12456 31082 92660
Prospect Area (acres)-M odel O utput** 1281 4235 5538 8339 13240 16493/11905 21097 27029 31445 39296 46000 50000 90285
Fill Fraction (Fraction of Area Filled) 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.17/0.08 0.2 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.4 0.45 1
Productive Area of Pool (acres) 108 523 696 1157 2008 2838/2846 3473 4615 5690 7550 9600 12000 30768
Pay T hickness (feet) 88 115 142 184 254 276/116 351 405 435 505 547 561 575
* m odel fit to prospect area data in BESTFIT
** output from @ RISK after aggregation with fill fraction

M P R O M odule (N um bers of Pools)

Input Play Level Chance 0.35 Prospect Level Chance 0.117 Exploration Chance 0.04095
O utput Play Level C hance 0.3428

Risk M odel Play Chance Petroleum System Factors Prospect C hance

0.35 R eservoir (granites fractured w ith w eathering enhancem ent) 0.3
Source (m ainly T ertiary coals and T ype III shales) 0.65

M igration (fault m igration paths m ust both transm it [deep] and seal [shallow ]) 0.6

Fractile F99 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
N um bers of Prospects in Play 24 26 27 29 32 31.99/3.62 33 34 36 38 40 42 48
N um bers of Pools in Play 1.31/2.10 3 4 5 6 7 8 15
Zero Pools at F34.28
M inim um N um ber of Pools 2 (F30) M ean Num ber of Pools 1.31 M axim um Num ber of Pools 15

P O O LS /PS R K /PS U M M odules (P lay R esources)

Fractile F100 F95 F90 F75 F50 M ean/Std. D ev. F25 F15 F10 F05 F02 F01 F00
O il R ecovery Factor (bbl/acre-foot) 5 31 43 81 158 228/191 310 444 580 610 680 710 1000
G as R ecovery Factor (M cfg/acre-foot) 3 27 38 73 146 218/193 290 420 541 620 695 730 1200
G as O il Ratio (Sol'n G as)(cf/bbl) 56 162 195 267 376 426/220 531 638 723 871 1073 1100 1110
C ondensate Y ield ((bbl/M m cfg) 1 14 17 21 25 25/7 29 32 34 35 37 39 50
Pool Size Distribution Statistics from PO O LS (1,000 B O E): μ (m u)= 9.814 σ 2 (sigm a squared)= 2.170 Random Num ber G enerator Seed= 599,626

B O E C onversion Factor (cf/bbl) 5620 Probability Any Pool C ontains B oth O il and Free G as (G as Cap) 0.1
Probability Any Pool is 100% O il 0.1 Fraction of Pool Volum e G as-B earing in O il Pools w ith G as Cap 0.9
Probability Any Pool is 100% G as 0.8

78
Table 9: DATA SHEET FOR @RISK MODELS FOR OIL AND GAS RECOVERY FACTORS FOR PLAY 1

Assessment Area: North Aleutian Basin Date: December 2003

Play: 1 - Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-Miocene)
Assessors: K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson

Oil Recovery Factor (barrels recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=7758.38*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.314705 0.053704 0.010 0.414 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.343750 0.059615 0.030 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.346810 0.057227 0.050 0.650 T-L-Normal
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0.793075 0.094369 0.500 1.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Oil Recovery Factor Calculation

Water Oil Recovery Oil Volume
Porosity
Saturation Efficiency Factor [1/FVF]
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0.9 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 -0.8 0
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.9 -0.8 1 0
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0 0 0 1

Gas Recovery Factor (mcfg recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=1537.8*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2*e2*(1-f2)/g2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.314705 0.053704 0.100 0.414 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.343750 0.059615 0.030 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Pressure (psi) 2609.400000 438.190000 878.000 4390.000 T-Normal
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 1.079112 0.028545 0.960 1.200 T-Normal
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.797408 0.038362 0.650 0.950 T-Normal
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0.126230 0.161910 0.000 1.000 T-L-Normal
g Temperature (ºRankine) 594.101000 18.089000 525.000 664.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Gas Recovery Factor Calculation

Gas
Water Gas Recovery Temperature
Porosity Pressure (psi) Gas FVF (1/Z) Shrinkage
Saturation Efficiency (ºRankine)
Factor*
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 0 0 -0.6 0 0
c Pressure (psi) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.95
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.8 -0.6 0 0 1 0 0
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
g Temperature (ºRankine) 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 1

* Includes gas volume lost to condensate drop-out and content of inert gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium)

79
Table 10: DATA SHEET FOR @RISK MODELS FOR OIL AND GAS RECOVERY FACTORS FOR PLAY 2

Assessment Area: North Aleutian Basin Date: December 2003

Play: 2 - Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene)
Assessors: K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson

Oil Recovery Factor (barrels recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=7758.38*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.213296 0.080897 0.100 0.335 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.452190 0.051720 0.060 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.254150 0.060354 0.050 0.650 T-L-Normal
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0.793075 0.094369 0.500 1.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Oil Recovery Factor Calculation

Water Oil Recovery Oil Volume
Porosity
Saturation Efficiency Factor [1/FVF]
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0.9 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 -0.8 0
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.9 -0.8 1 0
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0 0 0 1

Gas Recovery Factor (mcfg recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=1537.8*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2*e2*(1-f2)/g2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.213296 0.080897 0.100 0.335 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.452190 0.051720 0.060 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Pressure (psi) 7432.000000 1388.500000 1756.000 13000.000 T-Normal
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0.935260 0.107430 0.500 1.360 T-Normal
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.603219 0.051470 0.400 0.800 T-Normal
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0.126230 0.161910 0.000 1.000 T-L-Normal
g Temperature (ºRankine) 700.150000 32.112000 563.000 834.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Gas Recovery Factor Calculation

Gas
Water Gas Recovery Temperature
Porosity Pressure (psi) Gas FVF (1/Z) Shrinkage
Saturation Efficiency (ºRankine)
Factor*
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 0 0 -0.6 0 0
c Pressure (psi) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.95
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.8 -0.6 0 0 1 0 0
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
g Temperature (ºRankine) 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 1

* Includes gas volume lost to condensate drop-out and content of inert gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium)

80
Table 11: DATA SHEET FOR @RISK MODELS FOR OIL AND GAS RECOVERY FACTORS FOR PLAY 3

Assessment Area: North Aleutian Basin Date: December 2003

Play: 3 - Black Hills Uplift - Amak Basin (Eocene-Miocene)
Assessors: K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson

Oil Recovery Factor (barrels recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=7758.38*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.314705 0.053704 0.100 0.414 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.343750 0.059615 0.030 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.254150 0.060354 0.050 0.650 T-L-Normal
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0.793075 0.094369 0.500 1.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Oil Recovery Factor Calculation

Water Oil Recovery Oil Volume
Porosity
Saturation Efficiency Factor [1/FVF]
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0.9 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 -0.8 0
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.9 -0.8 1 0
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0 0 0 1

Gas Recovery Factor (mcfg recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=1537.8*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2*e2*(1-f2)/g2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.314709 0.053704 0.100 0.414 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.343750 0.059615 0.030 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Pressure (psi) 1502.800000 155.320000 878.000 2195.000 T-Normal
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 1.450000 0.015716 1.370 1.520 T-Normal
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.797408 0.038362 0.650 0.950 T-Normal
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0.126230 0.161910 0.000 1.000 T-L-Normal
g Temperature (ºRankine) 552.479700 6.622400 525.000 581.000 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Gas Recovery Factor Calculation

Gas
Water Gas Recovery Temperature
Porosity Pressure (psi) Gas FVF (1/Z) Shrinkage
Saturation Efficiency (ºRankine)
Factor*
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 0 0 -0.6 0 0
c Pressure (psi) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.95
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.8 -0.6 0 0 1 0 0
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
g Temperature (ºRankine) 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 1

* Includes gas volume lost to condensate drop-out and content of inert gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium)

81
Table 12: DATA SHEET FOR @RISK MODELS FOR OIL AND GAS RECOVERY FACTORS FOR PLAY 5

Assessment Area: North Aleutian Basin Date: December 2003

Play: 5 - Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous)
Assessors: K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson

Oil Recovery Factor (barrels recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=7758.38*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity 0.075664 0.019040 0.000 0.150 T-Normal
b Water Saturation 0.531180 0.042925 0.400 0.700 T-L-Normal
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.206220 0.033169 0.100 0.400 T-L-Normal
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0.793075 0.094367 0.556 0.901 T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Oil Recovery Factor Calculation

Water Oil Recovery Oil Volume
Porosity
Saturation Efficiency Factor [1/FVF]
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0.9 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 -0.8 0
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.9 -0.8 1 0
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0 0 0 1

Gas Recovery Factor (mcfg recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=1537.8*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2*e2*(1-f2)/g2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity T-Normal
b Water Saturation T-L-Normal
c Pressure (psi) T-Normal
d Gas FVF (1/Z) No Free Gas T-Normal
e Gas Recovery Efficiency T-Normal
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* T-L-Normal
g Temperature (ºRankine) T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Gas Recovery Factor Calculation

Gas
Water Gas Recovery Temperature
Porosity Pressure (psi) Gas FVF (1/Z) Shrinkage
Saturation Efficiency (ºRankine)
Factor*
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 0 0 -0.6 0 0
c Pressure (psi) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.95
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.8 -0.6 0 0 1 0 0
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
g Temperature (ºRankine) 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 1

* Includes gas volume lost to condensate drop-out and content of inert gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium)

82
Table 13: DATA SHEET FOR @RISK MODELS FOR OIL AND GAS RECOVERY FACTORS FOR PLAY 6

Assessment Area: North Aleutian Basin Date: December 2003

Play: 6 - Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills (Jurassic-Cretaceous Magmatic Rocks)
Assessors: K.W. Sherwood, D. Comer, J. Larson

Oil Recovery Factor (barrels recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=7758.38*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity T-Normal
b Water Saturation Oil and Gas Yields From Literature Compilation and Analysis by T-L-Normal
Paul Post and Jesse Hunt of U.S. Minerals Management Service,
c Oil Recovery Efficiency T-L-Normal
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Oil Recovery Factor Calculation

Water Oil Recovery Oil Volume
Porosity
Saturation Efficiency Factor [1/FVF]
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0.9 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 -0.8 0
c Oil Recovery Efficiency 0.9 -0.8 1 0
d Oil Volume Factor [1/FVF] 0 0 0 1

Gas Recovery Factor (mcfg recoverable per acre-foot)

Input Constant and @RISK Equation: "=1537.8*a2*(1-b2)*c2*d2*e2*(1-f2)/g2"
Standard
Mean Minimum Maximum f(x) Type
Deviation
a Porosity T-Normal
b Water Saturation T-L-Normal
c Pressure (psi) Oil and Gas Yields From Literature Compilation and Analysis by T-Normal
d Gas FVF (1/Z) Paul Post and Jesse Hunt of U.S. Minerals Management Service, T-Normal
e Gas Recovery Efficiency Gulf of Mexico OCS Region T-Normal
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* T-L-Normal
g Temperature (ºRankine) T-Normal

Dependency or Correlation Matrix for Gas Recovery Factor Calculation

Gas
Water Gas Recovery Temperature
Porosity Pressure (psi) Gas FVF (1/Z) Shrinkage
Saturation Efficiency (ºRankine)
Factor*
a Porosity 1 -0.9 0 0 0.8 0 0
b Water Saturation -0.9 1 0 0 -0.6 0 0
c Pressure (psi) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.95
d Gas FVF (1/Z) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
e Gas Recovery Efficiency 0.8 -0.6 0 0 1 0 0
f Gas Shrinkage Factor* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
g Temperature (ºRankine) 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 1

* Includes gas volume lost to condensate drop-out and content of inert gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and Helium)

83
Table 14: 2006 Assessment Results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
Risked, Undiscovered, Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources

Gas-Condensate
BOE Resources Oil Resources Nonassociated* Gas Solution Gas Total Liquid Total Gas Resources
Liquid Resources Ratio of
(Mmboe) (Mmbo) Resources (Tcfg) Resources (Tcfg) Resources (Mmbo) (Tcfg)
(Mmbo) Gas to Oil
***
Play
Play Name F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05
Number
Bear Lake-Stepovak
1 0 1400 3749 0 271 828 0 136 349 0.000 5.473 14.131 0.000 0.113 0.330 0 406 1176 0.000 5.586 14.461 71/29
(Oligocene-Miocene)
Tolstoi (Eocene-
2 91 568 1293 9 62 139 10 61 141 0.401 2.476 5.640 0.003 0.025 0.053 19 123 280 0.404 2.501 5.693 78/22
Oligocene)
Black Hills Uplift-
3 Amak Basin (Eocene- 0 210 1077 0 149 706 0 6 38 0.000 0.249 1.588 0.000 0.063 0.289 0 155 743 0.000 0.312 1.877 26/74
Miocene)
Milky River Biogenic
4 Play 4 Assessed with Negligible Resources
Gas (Plio-Pleistocene)

Mesozoic Deformed
5 Sedimentary Rocks 0 41 197 0 38 183 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.079 0 38 183 0.000 0.017 0.079 07/93
(Triassic-Cretaceous)

Mesozoic Buried
Granitic Hills (Jurassic-
6 0 67 330 0 26 93 0 5 29 0.000 0.195 1.128 0.000 0.010 0.041 0 30 122 0.000 0.206 1.169 55/45
Cretaceous Magmatic
Rocks)
Sum of All Plays** 91 2287 6647 9 545 1948 10 208 556 0.401 8.393 22.487 0.003 0.229 0.791 19 753 2505 0.404 8.622 23.278 67/33

* Free gas, occurring as gas caps associated with oil and as oil-free gas pools.

** Values as reported out of Basin Level Analysis-Geologic Scenario aggregation module in GRASP , "Volume Ordered" aggregation option. Total liquids and total gas values were
obtained by summing resource values for means and fractiles of component commodities. Play resource values are rounded and may not sum to totals reported from basin
aggregation.

*** Calculated as the ratio of total gas to total liquids at mean values (1 barrel of liquids = 5,620 cubic feet of gas at standard conditions). Given as ratio between fractions summing to
100.

BOE, total energy, in millions of barrels (5,620 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil, energy-equivalent); Mmbo, millions of barrels of oil or liquids; Tcfg, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas

84
Table 15: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Pool Size Results for Play 1 - Bear
Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-Miocene)
Classification and Size Pool Count Statistics Pool Type Counts
Minimum Maximum Trials with Mixed Gas
Pool Trial Oil Pool
Class Size Size Percentage Pool Pool Pool
Count Average Count
(Mmboe) (Mmboe) Average Count Count
1 0.0312 0.0625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.0625 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.125 0.25 4 0.005479 0.0004 0.000556 0 0 4
4 0.25 0.5 8 0.010958 0.0008 0.001111 0 0 8
5 0.5 1 53 0.072596 0.0053 0.007363 4 5 44
6 1 2 207 0.283534 0.0207 0.028758 11 5 191
7 2 4 604 0.827318 0.0604 0.083912 49 24 531
8 4 8 1630 2.232663 0.163 0.226452 146 73 1411
9 8 16 3893 5.332366 0.3893 0.540845 378 173 3342
10 16 32 7896 10.815401 0.7896 1.096971 741 442 6713
11 32 64 12596 17.253139 1.2596 1.749931 1231 754 10611
12 64 128 15882 21.754078 1.5882 2.206446 1584 1249 13049
13 128 256 14566 19.951511 1.4566 2.023618 1497 1508 11561
14 256 512 9798 13.42063 0.9798 1.361211 1094 1476 7228
15 512 1024 4321 5.918611 0.4321 0.600306 434 902 2985
16 1024 2048 1282 1.755996 0.1282 0.178105 101 448 733
17 2048 4096 238 0.325996 0.0238 0.033065 23 98 117
18 4096 8192 28 0.038352 0.0028 0.00389 1 20 7
19 8192 16384 1 0.00137 0.0001 0.000139 0 1 0
20 16384 32768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 32768 65536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 65536 131072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 131072 262144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 262144 524288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 524288 1048576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not Classified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals = 73007 100.000000 7.3007 10.142679 7294 7178 58535
Number of Pools Not Classified = 0 Number of Pools Below Class 1 = 0
Number of Trials with Pools = 7198 Number of Pools Above Class 25 = 0

Table 16: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 1 -
Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene-Miocene)
Pool Size in Millions of Barrels of Oil, Energy-Equivalent
Pool Rank F95 F75 F50 Mean F25 F05 F01
1 187 370 591 827 899 2495 3464
2 106 211 321 378 475 816 1255
3 65 139 214 245 317 542 738
4 41 97 153 174 227 382 543
5 26 69 113 130 172 290 404
6 17 50 86 99 133 227 319
7 12 38 67 78 106 184 260
8 9 29 53 63 86 153 215
9 7 23 44 53 72 129 182
10 6 19 36 44 61 110 157
11 5 16 31 38 53 96 138
12 4 14 27 34 46 85 123
13 4 13 24 30 41 76 111
14 4 12 22 27 37 69 101
15 3 11 20 25 34 64 93
16 3 10 18 23 31 59 125
17 3 9 17 22 29 56 81
18 3 9 16 21 28 53 77
19 2 8 16 20 27 50 72
20 2 8 15 19 25 48 69
21 2 8 15 18 25 46 65
22 2 8 14 17 24 43 61
23 2 7 14 17 23 41 58
24 2 7 13 16 21 39 55
25 2 7 12 15 20 37 51
26 2 6 12 14 19 34 48
27 2 6 11 13 18 32 45
28 1 6 10 12 17 30 42
29 1 5 10 12 16 28 39
30 1 5 9 11 15 26 36
31 1 5 9 10 14 24 33
32 1 4 8 9 13 22 29
33 1 4 7 8 11 19 26
34 1 3 5 6 9 15 22

Maximum Number of Pools = 34

85
 Table 17: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Pool Size Results for Play 2 -
Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene)
Classification and Size Pool Count Statistics Pool Type Counts
Minimum Maximum Trials with Mixed Gas
Pool Trial Oil Pool
Class Size Size Percentage Pool Pool Pool
Count Average Count
(Mmboe) (Mmboe) Average Count Count
1 0.0312 0.0625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0.0625 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0.125 0.25 2 0.003261 0.0002 0.000202 0 0 2
4 0.25 0.5 3 0.004892 0.0003 0.000303 0 0 3
5 0.5 1 34 0.055441 0.0034 0.003433 1 0 33
6 1 2 105 0.171216 0.0105 0.010601 2 3 100
7 2 4 310 0.505495 0.031 0.031297 12 13 285
8 4 8 944 1.539315 0.0944 0.095305 68 80 796
9 8 16 2646 4.314646 0.2646 0.267138 225 333 2088
10 16 32 8004 13.05156 0.8004 0.808077 780 819 6405
11 32 64 16546 26.9804 1.6546 1.670469 1662 1633 13251
12 64 128 18963 30.921633 1.8963 1.914488 1920 1780 15263
13 128 256 10866 17.718422 1.0866 1.097022 1033 1123 8710
14 256 512 2633 4.293448 0.2633 0.265825 252 352 2029
15 512 1024 265 0.432117 0.0265 0.026754 23 39 203
16 1024 2048 5 0.008153 0.0005 0.000505 0 1 4
17 2048 4096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 4096 8192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 8192 16384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 16384 32768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 32768 65536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 65536 131072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 131072 262144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 262144 524288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 524288 1048576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not Classified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals = 61326 100 6.1326 6.191419 5978 6176 49172
Number of Pools Not Classified = 0 Number of Pools Below Class 1 = 0
Number of Trials with Pools = 9905 Number of Pools Above Class 25 = 0

Table 18: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 2 -
Tolstoi (Eocene-Oligocene)
Pool Size in Millions of Barrels of Oil, Energy-Equivalent *
Pool Rank F95 F75 F50 Mean F25 F05 F01
1 61 122 181 208 258 467 686
2 34 75 113 124 159 248 330
3 22 54 83 90 117 182 241
4 16 41 65 71 94 146 191
5 13 34 54 59 78 122 161
6 11 29 46 51 68 107 142
7 9 25 41 45 60 96 129
8 8 22 37 41 54 88 119
9 7 21 34 38 50 82 112
10 6 19 31 35 47 79 107
11 6 18 30 34 45 76 104
12 6 17 29 33 44 75 100
13 5 16 28 32 43 74 97
14 5 16 28 32 44 74 94
15 5 16 28 32 45 73 92
16 5 17 29 33 46 71 89
17 6 17 30 33 46 69 85
18 6 18 31 33 46 67 82
19 6 18 31 32 45 64 78
20 6 19 30 32 43 62 75
21 6 18 29 30 41 59 72
22 6 17 28 29 39 56 68
23 6 16 26 27 37 53 65
24 5 15 25 26 35 51 62
25 5 14 24 25 33 48 59
26 5 14 22 23 31 46 56
27 4 13 21 22 30 44 54
28 4 12 20 21 28 42 52
29 3 11 19 20 27 40 49
30 3 11 18 19 26 38 47
31 3 10 17 18 25 37 45
32 3 9 16 17 23 35 53
33 2 9 15 16 22 34 42
34 2 8 14 16 22 32 40
35 2 8 14 15 21 31 39
36 2 8 13 14 20 30 37
37 2 7 13 14 19 28 35
38 2 7 12 13 18 27 34
39 2 7 12 12 17 26 32
40 1 6 11 12 16 24 30
41 1 6 10 11 15 23 28
42 1 5 9 10 14 21 26
43 1 5 8 9 12 19 24
44 1 3 6 7 10 16 21
Maximum Number of Pools = 44
* ranked as reported in PSRK module of GRASP

86
 Table 19: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Pool Size Results for Play 3 -
Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin (Eocene-Miocene)
Classification and Size Pool Count Statistics Pool Type Counts
Minimum Maximum Trials with Mixed Gas
Pool Trial Oil Pool
Class Size Size Percentage Pool Pool Pool
Count Average Count
(Mmboe) (Mmboe) Average Count Count
1 0.0312 0.0625 3 0.019578 0.0003 0.000727 2 1 0
2 0.0625 0.125 4 0.026105 0.0004 0.000969 1 2 1
3 0.125 0.25 18 0.11747 0.0018 0.004362 5 4 9
4 0.25 0.5 60 0.391568 0.006 0.014538 25 16 19
5 0.5 1 140 0.913659 0.014 0.033923 51 49 40
6 1 2 320 2.088364 0.032 0.077538 126 104 90
7 2 4 624 4.072309 0.0624 0.151199 226 194 204
8 4 8 1139 7.43327 0.1139 0.275987 464 373 302
9 8 16 1744 11.381583 0.1744 0.422583 695 647 402
10 16 32 2362 15.414736 0.2362 0.572329 937 906 519
11 32 64 2521 16.452393 0.2521 0.610855 1026 999 496
12 64 128 2440 15.923775 0.244 0.591228 973 1017 450
13 128 256 1889 12.327873 0.1889 0.457717 787 811 291
14 256 512 1182 7.713894 0.1182 0.286407 464 571 147
15 512 1024 569 3.713372 0.0569 0.137873 226 305 38
16 1024 2048 242 1.579325 0.0242 0.058638 82 141 19
17 2048 4096 58 0.378516 0.0058 0.014054 16 40 2
18 4096 8192 6 0.039157 0.0006 0.001454 1 5 0
19 8192 16384 1 0.006526 0.0001 0.000242 0 1 0
20 16384 32768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 32768 65536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 65536 131072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 131072 262144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 262144 524288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 524288 1048576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not Classified 1 0.006526 0.0001 0.000242 0 0 1
Totals = 15323 99.999992 1.5323 3.712866 6107 6186 3029
Number of Pools Not Classified = 1 Number of Pools Below Class 1 =1
Number of Trials with Pools = 4127 Number of Pools Above Class 25 = 0

Table 20: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 3 -
Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin (Eocene-Miocene)
Pool Size in Millions of Barrels of Oil, Energy-Equivalent
Pool Rank F95 F75 F50 Mean F25 F05 F01
1 19.7 83 195 378 444 1302 3328
2 5.8 27 64 110 136 365 667
3 2.7 13 31 52 65 169 312
4 1.7 7 18 30 38 98 176
5 1.2 5 12 20 25 64 114
6 1.0 4 9 14 18 45 80
7 0.8 3 7 11 14 34 60
8 0.7 3 6 9 11 27 47
9 0.6 2 5 7 9 22 38
10 0.5 2 4 6 8 19 32
11 0.4 2 4 5 7 16 27
12 0.4 2 3 5 6 14 23
13 0.3 1 3 4 5 11 19

Maximum Number of Pools = 13

87
 Table 21: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Pool Size Results for Play 5 -
Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous)
Classification and Size Pool Count Statistics Pool Type Counts
Minimum Maximum Trials with Mixed Gas
Pool Trial Oil Pool
Class Size Size Percentage Pool Pool Pool
Count Average Count
(Mmboe) (Mmboe) Average Count Count
1 0.0312 0.0625 5 0.034899 0.0005 0.001275 0 5 0
2 0.0625 0.125 7 0.048859 0.0007 0.001784 0 7 0
3 0.125 0.25 32 0.223355 0.0032 0.008157 0 32 0
4 0.25 0.5 101 0.704963 0.0101 0.025746 0 101 0
5 0.5 1 278 1.940392 0.0278 0.070864 0 278 0
6 1 2 570 3.978502 0.057 0.145297 0 570 0
7 2 4 1201 8.382773 0.1201 0.306143 0 1201 0
8 4 8 2164 15.104348 0.2164 0.551619 0 2164 0
9 8 16 2948 20.576534 0.2948 0.751466 0 2948 0
10 16 32 3088 21.553709 0.3088 0.787153 0 3088 0
11 32 64 2387 16.660851 0.2387 0.608463 0 2387 0
12 64 128 1166 8.13848 0.1166 0.297222 0 1166 0
13 128 256 304 2.121868 0.0304 0.077492 0 304 0
14 256 512 66 0.460669 0.0066 0.016824 0 66 0
15 512 1024 8 0.055839 0.0008 0.002039 0 8 0
16 1024 2048 1 0.00698 0.0001 0.000255 0 1 0
17 2048 4096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 4096 8192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 8192 16384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 16384 32768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 32768 65536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 65536 131072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 131072 262144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 262144 524288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 524288 1048576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not Classified 1 0.00698 0.0001 0.000255 0 1 0
Totals = 14327 100 1.4327 3.652052 0 14327 0
Number of Pools Not Classified = 1 Number of Pools Below Class 1 = 1
Number of Trials with Pools = 3923 Number of Pools Above Class 25 = 0

Table 22: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 5 -
Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary Rocks (Triassic-Cretaceous)
Pool Size in Millions of Barrels of Oil, Energy-Equivalent
Pool Rank F95 F75 F50 Mean F25 F05 F01
1 8 24 45 63 80 176 387
2 3 10 20 26 35 70 107
3 2 6 11 15 20 41 63
4 1 4 8 10 14 27 42
5 1 3 5 7 10 20 31
6 1 2 4 6 8 15 24
7 1 2 4 5 6 13 19
8 0.4 1 3 4 5 11 16
9 0.4 1 3 3 5 9 14
10 0.3 1 2 3 4 8 12
11 0.3 1 2 3 4 7 11
12 0.2 1 2 2 3 6 9
13 0.2 1 2 2 3 5 8

Maximum Number of Pools = 13

88
 Table 23: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Pool Size Results for Play 6 -
Mesozoic Granitic Buried Hills (Jurassic-Cretaceous)
Classification and Size Pool Count Statistics Pool Type Counts
Minimum Maximum Trials with Mixed Gas
Pool Trial Oil Pool
Class Size Size Percentage Pool Pool Pool
Count Average Count
(Mmboe) (Mmboe) Average Count Count
1 0.0312 0.0625 2 0.01528 0.0002 0.000584 0 0 2
2 0.0625 0.125 10 0.0764 0.001 0.002918 0 0 10
3 0.125 0.25 35 0.2674 0.0035 0.010213 0 0 35
4 0.25 0.5 102 0.77928 0.0102 0.029764 0 0 102
5 0.5 1 250 1.910001 0.025 0.07295 11 1 238
6 1 2 498 3.804722 0.0498 0.145317 12 3 483
7 2 4 1030 7.869203 0.103 0.300554 61 16 953
8 4 8 1709 13.056766 0.1709 0.498687 146 44 1519
9 8 16 2302 17.587288 0.2302 0.671725 233 88 1981
10 16 32 2483 18.970127 0.2483 0.72454 271 149 2063
11 32 64 2173 16.601727 0.2173 0.634082 297 238 1638
12 64 128 1397 10.673084 0.1397 0.407645 167 260 970
13 128 256 733 5.600122 0.0733 0.21389 74 249 410
14 256 512 247 1.887081 0.0247 0.072075 13 144 90
15 512 1024 86 0.65704 0.0086 0.025095 5 66 15
16 1024 2048 22 0.16808 0.0022 0.00642 0 19 3
17 2048 4096 5 0.0382 0.0005 0.001459 0 5 0
18 4096 8192 4 0.03056 0.0004 0.001167 0 4 0
19 8192 16384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 16384 32768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 32768 65536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 65536 131072 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 131072 262144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 262144 524288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 524288 1048576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not Classified 1 0.00764 0.0001 0.000292 0 0 1
Totals = 13089 100.000008 1.3089 3.819376 1290 1286 10513
Number of Pools Not Classified = 1 Number of Pools Below Class 1 = 1
Number of Trials with Pools = 3427 Number of Pools Above Class 25 = 0

Table 24: Conditional (Unrisked) Recoverable Sizes of Ranked Pools for Play 6 -
Mesozoic Granitic Buried Hills (Jurassic-Cretaceous)
Pool Size in Millions of Barrels of Oil, Energy-Equivalent
Pool Rank F95 F75 F50 Mean F25 F05 F01
1 9 33 71 148 154 469 1416
2 3 13 27 42 52 131 234
3 2 7 14 21 28 64 112
4 1 4 9 13 18 40 68
5 1 3 6 9 12 28 46
6 1 2 5 7 9 21 34
7 1 2 4 6 8 16 27
8 0.5 2 3 5 6 13 22
9 0.4 1 3 4 5 11 18
10 0.3 1 3 4 5 10 16
11 0.3 1 2 3 4 9 14
12 0.3 1 2 3 4 8 12
13 0.2 1 2 3 3 7 11
14 0.2 1 2 2 3 6 9
15 0.2 1 1 2 2 5 8

Maxiumum Number of Pools = 15

89
Table 25: 2006 Economic Assessment Results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
Risked, Undiscovered, Technically and Economically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources

OIL AND CONDENSATE FREE GAS AND SOLUTION

BOE (Mmboe)
SCENARIO (Mmbo) GAS (Tcfg) MPhc
F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05 F95 Mean F05
Technically Recoverable (Petroleum
19 753 2505 0.404 8.622 23.278 91 2287 6647 1.00
Endowment)

Threshold or "Marginal" Prices ($2005, Mean Resource Case) Required for First Positive Economic Results = $14/barrel of oil and $2.12/Mcf of
Solution Gas. The Threshold Price for Economic Non-Associated Gas = $3.63/Mcf.

Economically Recoverable at $18/Bbl

0 45 200 0.000 0.017 0.053 0 48 209 0.05
(Oil) and $2.72/Mcf (Gas)

Economically Recoverable at $30/Bbl

2 378 1371 0.001 0.909 2.780 3 539 1865 0.54
(Oil) and $4.54/Mcf (Gas)

Economically Recoverable at $46/Bbl

11 631 2180 0.132 5.852 16.548 34 1672 5125 0.90
(Oil) and $6.96/Mcf (Gas)

Economically Recoverable at $80/Bbl

19 738 2468 0.392 8.396 22.767 89 2232 6519 0.99
(Oil) and $12.10/Mcf (Gas)

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS : 2005 base year; oil price is Alaska North Slope crude landed at U.S. West Coast; gas price is LNG delivered to U.S. West
Coast; 0.8488 is gas value discountrelative to oil on a BOE basis; flat real prices and costs; 3% inflation; 12% discount rate; 35% Federal tax.
TERMINOLOGY : Mmbo , millions of barrels of oil and condensate; Tcfg , trillions of cubic feet, gas; Mmboe , total oil and gas in millions of energy-equivalent
barrels; Mean , resource quantities at the mean in cumulative probability distributions; F95 , the resource quantity having a 95-percent probability of being met
or exceeded; F05 , the resource quantity having a 5-percent probability of being met or exceeded; The MPhc for technically recoverable resources is the
probability that the assessment area contains at least one accumulation. The MPhc for the economic cases is the probability that the area contains at least
one economic accumulation under the given economic conditions. For example, if the $30 case shows a MPhc of 0.22, then 2,200 out of 10,000 trials have at
least one prospect with economically recoverable resources (oil or gas) at the given starting prices and other economic conditions. Resource quantities are
risked (product of multiplying the conditional resources and MPhc).

90
 144° 148° 152° 156° 160° 164° 168° 172° 176° 180° 176° 172° 168° 164°160° 156° 152° 148° 144° 140° 136° 132° 128° 124° 120° 116° 112°
72°

Arctic Ocean
BASINS OF BERING SHELF
60° Beaufort Sea 70°
AND PACIFIC MARGIN OFFSHORE
Chukchi Sea BARROW

68°

58° OCS Planning Area Boundaries

RUSSIA
HOPE
NPR-A
BASIN
ANWR 66°

KOTZEBUE
BASIN
56°
64°

ST. MATTHEW- NOME

HALL BASIN CENTRAL
FAIRBANKS

C ANADA
ALA SK A
NORTON ALASKA
54° BASIN 62°

NAVARIN North Aleutian Basin

BASIN OCS Planning Area 60°
Bering Sea COOK
52° ANCHORAGE
BETHEL INLET
BASIN VALDEZ
BERING

RA AS K RN
SHELF

NG A
A L ST E
58°

E
BASINS JUNEAU

WE
50°
ST. GEORGE
y
Ba

A
BASIN
DEEP ABYSSAL l

UL
PACIFIC MARGIN
sto
56°
B ri

S
PLAINS OF THE

IN
PE
N BASINS
BERING SEA KA
48° AS
AL KODIAK
Al AMAK ISLAND G ulf of Alaska 54°
e ut BASIN
ian
Islan
ds DUTCH
46° HARBOR

NORTH 52°

50 0 150
ALEUTIAN Pacific Ocean 50 0 150
NAUTICAL MILES

MILES
44° Pacific Ocean 50°
BASIN 50 0 150 KILOMETERS

Sherwood\...\Fig01-LocationMap-NorthAleutianBasin.cdr
174° 178° 178° 174° 170° 166° 162° 158° 154° 150° 146° 142° 138° 134°

Figure 1: Location map for North Aleutian basin and other Tertiary-age basins of the Bering shelf, Pacific margin, and southern Chukchi Sea.

91
 State of Alaska Proposed “Pebble”
ALASKA 2004 Contracted
Licensing Area Gold-Copper-

Bering Sea Molybdenum Mine Iliamna Lake

A
ARE
State of Alaska
2003 Proposed

NING
Licensing Area Kuka L.

LAN
CS P
Naknek
58° 164°

IN O
King Naknek
Lake

BAS
Salmon
162° Lake
Brooks
TIAN
Bristol Bay 160° Triassic & Jurassic
LEU

Oil Source Rocks

158° Great
(Puale Bay)
TH A

Basins 2
Be
ch
156°
aro
f
NOR

La
Great ke Lathrop 1 Bear
Basins 1 McNally 1 Creek 1
Becharof Alaska 1 Oil Shows
Lake 1 s * Gas Shows
ke
Tested Gas La Lee 1
ik
sh
90 Mcfd ga
Oil Shows U
Finnegan 1 Pacific 1
Costello 1
Ugashik 1 Pacific 2
State of Alaska Costello 2
Grammer 1
Wide Bay 1
Oct 2005Lease Port Port
Painter
Creek 1
Sale Area Heiden Heiden 1 Oil Stain Jurassic Oil
North Aleutian Source Rocks
Shelf COST 1
Oil Shows
A
UL
Gas Shows Top Prospect
Collected $69.4 MM in
Sale 92 (73% of Sale) S Koniag 1
IN
Sale 92
56° High Bid Tract

EN
GE ST $24.36 MM EXPLANATION
O .
BA RG St. George
A P Well, Plugged and Abandoned (18

SK
Sandy River 1 Wells Onshore, 1903-1983; 1 well
SI E COSTJur-Cret
2
Oil
N Oil Shows offshore, 1983)
Source Rocks?
A Chignik

AL
Well, Plugged and Abandoned,
OCS Sale 92 Area Bear
Lake Gas Shows with Gas Shows
Monkshood 1 Port
Oil Show Bertha 1 Hoodoo Moller Well, Plugged and Abandoned,
Shallow Lake 1 with Oil Shows
Big River 1 Oil Shows
Gas Shows Cathedral Hoodoo Gas Seep
River 1 Lake 2
Oil Staining Oil Shows Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake seep
Gas Shows (see below)
Canoe Balboa
Bay 1 Uplift or Structural Arch
Bay

Cold Pavlof Tertiary-Age (<65 Ma) Strata

Bay Bay >3,000 Feet Thick
False Sand Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92, $95.4
Pass Point MM, 23 Leases); Relinquished &
David Inactive.
River 1/1A
Oil Shows Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
Tested Gas $1.3 MM, 37 Leases); Active.
(5-9 Mcfd)
* Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location
unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992, Biologic
markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)
0 50 Outlines of proposed State of Alaska leasing and

MILES Pacific Ocean licensing programs at

http://www/dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/product
s.htm

Sherwood\....\Fig02-Wells&Leases-NAB.cdr

Figure 2: Regional map for North Aleutian basin, with well control, Sale 92 (1988) leases (now relinquished and inactive), and regional distribution of
Tertiary-age sedimentary rocks.

92
 CDP SEISMIC DATA GRID (TWO-DIMENSIONAL)
NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF
COST 1 WELL

0 25 50 75 100 miles

y
l Ba
o
ist
Br
Sale 92 (1988)

sula
nin
Pe
ka
las
A

Sherwood\....\Fig03-NorthAleutianSeismicGrid.cdr

Figure 3: CDP (common-depth-point) seismic data (two-dimensional) for the North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning
Area. Most data was acquired prior to 1988. Seismic data gathered to date within the North Aleutian Basin OCS
Planning Area consists of 64,672 combined line miles of conventional, two-dimensional, common-depth-point
(CDP) and shallow-penetrating, high-resolution (HRD) data. Of the seismic data held by MMS, 95% is CDP and
5% is HRD. Airborne magnetic data in the area covers 9,596 line miles. Approximately 6,400 miles of airborne
gravity data have also been gathered in the Planning Area.

93
 144° 148° 152° 156° 160° 164° 168° 172° 176° 180° 176° 172° 168° 164°160° 156° 152° 148° 144° 140° 136° 132° 128° 124° 120° 116° 112°
72°

Arctic Ocean
BASINS OF BERING SHELF
60° 70°
AND PACIFIC MARGIN OFFSHORE Beaufort Sea
BARROW
Chukchi Sea
68°

58°
RUSSIA NPR-A
HOPE
BASIN
ANWR 66°

KOTZEBUE
BASIN
56°
64°

ST. MATTHEW- NOME

HALL BASIN CENTRAL
FAIRBANKS

CANADA
ALASKA

ALASK
NORTON
54° BASIN 62°
Northern Cook
Inlet Oil & Gas

A
NAVARIN ??
BASIN Province 60°
52° Bering Sea ANCHORAGE
BETHEL COOK
BERING INLET VALDEZ

DEEP BERING
SHELF BASIN
SEA BASINS BASINS 58°
JUNEAU
NORTH
50° ?? KODIAK
LASKA S
ALEUTIAN ISLAND FA HELF
FO
BASIN UL 56°
G

PACIFIC MARGIN

F
ST. GEORGE

EL
48°
BASIN SH BASINS
DUTCH AK 54°
DI
HARBOR
- KO
GIN Gulf of Alaska
SHUMA
46°
52°
Tertiary-Age Basins
50 0 150
NAUTICAL MILES
Pacific Ocean
44°
Distribution of Jurassic rocks after
Imlay & Detterman, 1973, USGS PP 801
Mesozoic Basin with 50 0

50 0
150

150
MILES
50°
KILOMETERS

Sherwood\...\Fig04-RegionalDistributionJurassic.cdr
Jurassic Oil Source Rocks?
174° 178° 178° 174° 170° 166° 162° 158° 154° 150° 146° 142° 138° 134°

Figure 4: Regional distribution of Mesozoic sedimentary basin containing strata correlative to Middle Jurassic oil source rocks that generated 1.4 billion barrels
of oil reserves in the oil fields of northern Cook Inlet basin. Distribution of Jurassic rocks after Imlay and Detterman (1973) and Worrall (1991).

94
 Bering Sea ALASKA Iliamna Lake

A
ARE
NG
Kuka L.

NNI
PLA
CS
Naknek
58°

IN O
164°
King Naknek

BAS
Lake
Salmon
TIAN 162° Lake
Brooks

Bristol Bay 160° AY

LEU

B
158° IN LT
U U
TH A

Great
R
B FA
Basins 2
Be
ch
156°
aro
NOR

f
Great Lake Lathrop 1
Basins 1 McNally 1
Alaska 1 Bear
* Creek 1
Becharof Lake 1 akes
L Lee 1
ik h
as
Ug
2000 ee t Finnegan 1
00 F
N--
Pacific 1

e
<3,0

lin
Costello 1
ent
TIA SIN

tic
m Pacific 2

An
s e Ugashik 1
c Ba U

k
Costello 2
usti LE BA

hi
Fi

as
A co Grammer 1
H A AY ??

Ug
000 Wide Bay 1
3
gu

RT OL B
OCS S Port
ale 92 Heiden Port
O
N ST
Painter
re

North Aleutian Heiden 1 Creek 1

I
Shelf COST 1
BR A
6

0
00 00

UL
00 6 70
4000 50
S Koniag 1

GE ST
56°
N IN
O .
BA RG St. George
??
A PE
SI
N E
COST 2
K
AS
Sandy
Chignik
River 1
Bear
Lake
AL
Monkshood 1 HILLS U Port
EXPLANATION
CK
BLA PL
Bertha 1 Hoodoo Moller
I FT ?? Lake 1
Big River 1
Well, Plugged and Abandoned (18 Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
4000 Cathedral Wells Onshore, 1903-1983; 1 well $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Hoodoo offshore, 1983)
5000 River 1 Lake 2
AMAK BA Gas Seep Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
SIN $1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
7000 Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake seep
Canoe Balboa (see below)
6000 Bay 1 Bay Horizon “B” (Upper Oligocene)
Uplift or Structural Arch 4000 or Approximate Base of Bear
Cold Pavlof Lake Fm., (Subsea Depth in
Bay Bay Feet)
Surface Anticline or Antiformal
False Duplex in Mesozoic Rocks Transtensional faults bounding
Sand basement uplifts in North
Pass Point
David Aleutian basin and along flanks
River 1/1A of Black Hills Uplift
Tertiary-Age (<65 Ma) Strata
>3,000 Feet Thick Thrust Faults, Folds and Duplex
Structures (Schematic
Strike-Slip Fault, with Sense of Locations) Affecting Tertiary
Displacement Strata Along South Flank of
North Aleutian Basin
Bruin Bay Fault and Subsurface
0 50 Projection Based on

MILES Pacific Ocean Aeromagnetic Data

* Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992, Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)
Structures in Mesozoic rocks from Detterman et al. (1987), Detterman et al (1981), Wilson et al. (1995), and Riehle et al. (1993)

Sherwood\....\Fig05-NorthAleutianStructures.cdr

Figure 5: Principal geologic structures of the North Aleutian basin and contiguous areas, including: 1) transtensional faults and basement uplifts in western parts
of the basin; 2) wrench-fault structures along the Black Hills uplift; and 3) fold/thrust belts along the southeast margin of the basin. The fold/thrust structures do
not appear to extend into the Federal offshore (>3 miles).

95
 SEISMIC LINE--NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN BASEMENT UPLIFTS
Top Prospect--$69.4 MM in High Bids (73% of Sale 92)
North Aleutian
NORTHWEST Shelf COST 1 Sale 92 SOUTHEAST
High Bid Tract 755
$24.36 MM
0 0

Two-Way Time (s)

1.0 1.0
Two-Way Time (s)

2.0 2.0

3.0 3.0

4.0 4.0

5.0 5.0
Depth (1,000 feet, subsea)

Depth (1,000 feet, subsea)

5 5

Regional
Shale Seal
Upper Eocene Unconfo
rmity-Hz D
10 10

Typical Top of Oil Generation Zone (0.6% Ro) at 12,312 feet

15 Paleocene-Top Basement? ? 15
? Lower Eocene Unc
onformit y

Pre-Tertiary Rocks (Cretaceous and

Paleocene-Top Basement? ? Jurassic) representing accreted
? volcanic-plutonic arc terranes.
? Liquid Floor (2.0% Ro) at 21,907 feet ssd
Adapted from Figure 64, North Aleutian COST 1 well report, OCS Report MMS 88-0089 Bear Lake-Stepovak (Oligocene- TD 17,155 ft Oil Shows (Trace) Regional de pths for thermal maturity zones are based on vit rinite reflectance
Miocene) Play Sequence Early Eocene isograds penetrated at the North Aleutia n Shelf COST 1 well. The 1.35% and 2.00%
Gas Shows (Minor) isograds w ere not penetrated but are forecast from the da ta set below the fa ult at

Sherwood\...\Fig06-SeismicLineFig64-SS6.cdr Tolstoi Fm. 15 ,620 ft, with 647 ft added to forecast d epths to correct for the fau lt gap.

Figure 6: Seismic profile through basement uplifts in western North Aleutian basin, showing Tertiary sedimentary sequences and basin structures. Profiles
adapted from Turner et al. (1988, fig. 64). The location of the profile is shown in figure 5. A full-scale version of figure 6 is also available as plate 1.

96
 MAGNETIC ANOMALIES AND MESOZOIC BASEMENT TERRANES
NORTH ALEUTIAN AND ST. GEORGE BASINS
Southern Bering Sea Shelf
Adapted from Childs, Cooper and Wright, 1981, USGS Geoph. Inv. Map GP-939

O
162O Residual Magnetic Intensity
164 58O
167 O
166O (gammas)
>1,000

-800
OCS Sale 92 Sale 92
Leases
North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1

56O
ST.
GE
BASORGE
IN St. George dral
COST 2 Cathe 1
St. George River
COST 1 ILLS UPLI FT
KH
AC
Monkshood 1
Bertha 1
BL
AMAK BASIN

54O

0 50
MILES

Sherwood\....\Fig07-NorthAleutianMagneticMap.cdr

Figure 7: Magnetic intensity map with offshore speculative extrapolation of the Bruin Bay fault. Adapted from
Childs et al. (1981).

97
Figure 8: Mesozoic stratigraphy, Alaska Peninsula and substrate beneath southwest part of North Aleutian basin.

98
 NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF COST 1 WELL

LITHOLOGY
FORMATIONS GEOLOGI CAL PALEO- SPONTANEOUS DEPTH DEEP FORMATION DENSITY SHOWS REGIONAL PLAY
AGE BATHYM ETRY PO TENTIAL (FEET BKB) RES ISTIVITY POROSITY AND CORE POROSITY UN CONFORM ITIES, SEQUENCE S
GAMMA LOG (DenMA = 2.6 5 g/cc) SEISMIC HORIZONS,

MIDDLE NE RITIC
OUTER NERITIC
TRANSITIONAL
INNER NERITIC
RAY SEIS MIC SEQUENCES

NO NMARI NE
KB 85 ft asl
SP WD 274 ft

PERIOD

EPOCH

AGE
ERA
-80 ( Millivolts) 20 Seafloor= RES ISTIV ITY SANDSTONE POROSITY
2
GR 359 ft bkb 0.3 (Ohms m /m) 300 100 (%) -2 1
0 ( API Un its) 100 40 30 20 10 0
0

Milky River Biogenic

QUATERNARY
PLEISTOCENE

Gas (Play 4)
UNN AMED ?
QUATERNARY
1000 SEISMIC
SEQUENC E I

1590 ft 1.8 EARLY

Ma
PLIOCENE
LATE

2000
MILKY RIVER
FORMATION EARLY
SEISMIC HOR IZON
?
2700 ft 5.3 “A” (2510 ft)
Ma
NEOGENE

3000
LATE

Bear Lake - Stepovak (Plays 1, 3)

MIOCENE
EAR LY TO LATE?

BEAR LAKE SEISMIC

FORMATION 4000 SEQUENC E II
Den sity Poro sity
(Sandstone)

4870 ft 23.8
Ma
5000 Range of Sa ndstone
Po rosity in Conventional
Co re
SEISMIC HOR IZON
?
“B” (5675 ft)
LATE

6000
?
PROBA BLE

SEISMIC
SEQUENCE III
7000
OLIGOCENE

STEPOVAK
FOR MATION SEISMIC HORIZON
?
8000
CENOZOIC

“C” (7900 ft)

PROBA BLE EARLY

9000 SEISMIC
SEQUENCE IV
LATE EARLY

33 .7
Ma 10000 Top Oil Generation Zone at 10,372 ft
10380 ft SP Floor/Effective Porosity at 10,380 ft SEISMIC HORIZON
GR
LATE

(Only Microporosity >10,380 ft) “D” (10380 ft)

[Truncates
B asement U plifts]
11000 Top Ove rpressure
PALEOGENE

at 11 ,200 ft

Tolstoi (Play 2)
12000
MIDDLE TO LATE

Top Peak Oil Gene ratio n Zon e

( 0.6 Ro%) at 12 ,397 ft

13000 SEISMIC
SEQUENC E V

TOLSTOI
FOR MATION
14000
EOCENE
MIDDLE

15000
Fa ult Cut at
15,620 ft md
(Gap = 647 ft)
?
TO

16,028.5 ft
K-Ar
31.6 Ma
16000
Lower Eo cen e
EARLY

K-Ar Unc onformity

40.5 Ma

K-Ar Log TD 16 ,686 ft bkb Log TD 16,686 ft bkb L og TD 16,686 ft bkb 16,701 ft
47.1 Ma
17000
TD
[17,155 ft in
Eocene]

Formation correlations from Detterman, 1990, U .S. Geological Survey Open

File 90-279, pl. 1. Time scale values f rom Palmer (1998). EXPLANATION
K-Ar Radiometric Dates by Teldyne Isotopes (1983)
Spl 136: 16,660- 16,670 ft bkb; 40.5 +/- 10.3 m.y. Conglomerate,
(Volcanic Fragments in Cuttings) Gas Show Pebbly Sandstone Shale
Spl 137: 16,690- 16,700 ft bkb; 47.1 +/- 18.3 m.y.
(Intrusi ve? Diabase Fragments, Cuttings)
Spl 138: 16,016. 2-16,016.6 feet bkb; 31.6 +/-2.0 m.y.
(Volcanic Pebble in Conglomerate, Core 18)
Oil Show Sandstone Coal
Oil & Gas
Siltstone Volcanics
Show
Sherwood\.....\Fig09-NorthAleutianS tratColumn.cdr Adapted from Pl ate 1, Minerals Managment Service OCS Report MMS 88-0089

Figure 9: Wellbore stratigraphy, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 stratigraphic test well, drilled by an industry
consortium in 1983. A full-scale version of figure 9 is available as plate 2.

99
 Regional Stratigraphic Correlation Panel
A NORTH ALEUTIAN
SHELF COST 1 WELL
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well to Alaska Peninsula
A’
(Southwest) KB 85 ft ASL, WD 277 ft
Completed 1983
SANDY RIVER
1 WELL
PORT HEIDEN BECHAROF
LAKE 1 WELL
(Northeast)
SPONTANEOUS DEEP
KB 255 ft ASL
1 WELL UGASHIK 1 WELL KB 202 ft ASL
POTENTIAL RESISTIVITY KB 36 ft ASL KB 145 ft ASL Completed 1985
GAMMA Completed 1963 Completed 1966
RAY
Completed 1972
SP SP DEEP
-80 (Millivolts) 20 RESISTIVITY
2
GR (Ohms m /m) SP DEEP (Ohms m2/m)
SP DEEP
0 (API Units) 100 0.3 300 72 Miles RESISTIVITY
77 Miles RESISTIVITY 48 Miles SP DEEP 34 Miles -80 20 0.2 200
(Ohms m2/m) 2
(Ohms m /m)
RESISTIVITY
-80 20 0.2 200
Water Depth 277 ft -80 20 0.2 200
Sea Level Datum (Ohms m2/m)
Sea Level Datum Sea Level Datum -80 20 0.2 200
S.L.
Datum
Biogenic Gas
M ilky River
(Play 4)

Milky River Milky River

Play Sequence Play Sequence
2420
2510 2850 Seismic Horizon “A” 2600
2970
(Pliocene Unconformit
y)
3975
Bear Lake-Stepovak
Play Sequence 33 + 1.7 m.y. 5410
5675
Seismic Horizon “B” 5845 5460
6380 6510
nformity )
(Late Oligocene Unco
Bear Lake-Stepovak
7900 Play Sequence
39 + 7 m.y.

8870
9120
Seismic Horizon
“C” Meshik
9555 9840 [TD 9,023 ft bkb

Unconformity) Volcanics in Jurassic-Cretaceous

Schist, Meta-Diorite, Meta-Gabbro)
(Early Oligocene [TD 9,476 ft bkb
10380 Regi in Eocene Volcanics]
SP
GR onal Tolstoi Radiometric (?) dates from Brockway (1975)

Shal Play
e Seal 11330 43 + 4 m.y.
42 + 4 m.y.

Sequence
12280 42 + 4 m.y.

Tolstoi O
Dip 30 -
(La
Se
ism

AR EA
Play 50O NW te ic
Ho Bering Sea ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Eo

NI NG
[TD 13,068 ft bkb
ce r iz
Sequence in Upper Eocene?]
ne on Kuka L.

AN
(Anderson et al., 1977b)
Un “D

OC S PL
co ” 36 + 8 m.y. 58° 164°
Naknek

nfo 162°
King
Salmon
Naknek
Lake

rm

BA SIN
Lake
Brooks

it y
)
Bristol Bay 160°
158°
A’

TIA N
Great
37.7 + 2 m.y. Basins 2
156°

IN
Be
cha
rof
Lak
Great e Lathrop 1 Bear
Becharof

H AL EU
Basins 1 McNally 1 Creek 1
[TD 15,015 ft bkb

AS
Alaska 1

16028.5-16701 ft in Eocene Diorite] Lake 1 ke

s

EXPLANATION B
La Lee 1
hik
as
Ug

31.6 + 2 m.y.
2000
N Finnegan 1 Pacific 1

NO RT
(Between Cores 18 & 19) Radiometric (K-Ar) dates from Geochron (1969)
T IA
Costello 1
Pacific 2

EU Port
Costello 2
3000 Ugashik 1 Wide Bay 1 Grammer 1

AL
O RT H
Painter
40.5 + 10.3 m.y.
47.1 + 18.3 m.y. Milky River Regional Shale Heiden 1 C
Creek 1

AN AR
00 Port
60 7000 Heiden
O 00 IC
Dip 20
4000 50
AN
Early Play Sequence Seal 56° Sandy
E
VO
LC
Koniag 1

E GE ST
In Core Uncon ocene
. St. George
BA ORG COST
River 1 RA
NG
Formation correlations for North [TD 17,155 ft bkb SIN E 2 North Aleutian TIA
N
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well from in Lower Eocene] formit Bear Lake-Stepovak Meshik Formation Shelf COST 1 AL
EU
Chignik

Detterman, 1990, U.S. Geological

Survey Open File 90-279, pl. 1.
(Turner et al., 1988) y Monkshood 1
C K HILLS U Port
Bear
Lake

BL A P
Bertha 1 Hoodoo Moller
LI FT
Radiometric (K-Ar) dates by Teledyne Isotopes (1983) Play Sequence (Eocene Volcanics) 5000
4000 Cathedral
River 1
Lake 1
Hoodoo
Lake 2
Big River 1

AMAK BA
SIN
7000 Canoe EXPLANATION
Jurassic-Cretaceous
Balboa
6000 Bay 1 Bay
Well, Plugged and Abandoned (18

Tolstoi Play
Adapted from an unpublished stratigraphic correlation
Cold Wells Onshore, 1903-1983; 1 well
Bay offshore, 1983)

Granites, False Sand

Sequence Pass
David
Point Horizon “B” (Upper Oligocene)
or Approximate Base of Bear

Metamorphics River 1, 1A 4000

panel prepared by G.C. Martin (fmr. MMS, ca. 1990)

Lake Fm., (Subsea Depth in
Feet)

Tertiary-Age (<65 Ma) Strata

>3,000 Feet Thick
0 50
Regional Interfingering at MILES Pacific Ocean
Unconformity Facies Boundary Sherwood\....\StratCrossSectionLocationMap.cdr

Sherwood\.....\Fig10-StratCorrelation-NASwell-OnshoreWells.cdr

Figure 10: Regional stratigraphic correlation panel for Tertiary sequence in North Aleutian Shelf COST 1, Sandy River 1, Port Heiden 1, Ugashik 1, and
Becharof Lake 1 wells, North Aleutian basin and Alaska Peninsula. A full-scale version of figure 10 is available as plate 3.

100
 NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF COST 1 WELL
Statistical Summaries of Sandstone Bed Thickness Data

BEAR LAKE-STEPOVAK
(2510-7900 ft)
Percent of Sandstone Beds

Bear Lake-Stepovak (Plays 1, 3)

Gross Interval = 5390 ft
Number of SS Beds = 91
Net Sand = 3305 ft (61% of Interval)
Net Sand > 10 ft Beds = 3120 ft (94% of Sand)
Net Sand > 100 ft Beds = 1443 ft
Maximum Thickness Single Sand = 277 ft

UPPER TOLSTOI
(7900-10380 ft)
Percent of Sandstone Beds

Upper Tolstoi (Play 2)

Gross Interval = 2480 ft
Number of SS Beds = 22
Net Sand = 236 ft (10% of Interval)
Net Sand > 10 ft Beds = 186 ft (80% of Sand)
Net Sand >100 ft Beds = 0 ft (0% of Sand)
Maximum Thickness Single Sand = 43 ft

LOWER TOLSTOI
(10380-16700 ft, log TD)
Percent of Sandstone Beds

Lower Tolstoi (Play 2)

Gross Interval = 6320 ft
Number of SS Beds = 186
Net Sand = 1910 ft (30% of Interval)
Net Sand > 10 ft = 1431 ft (75% of Sand)
Net Sand > 100 ft = 0 (0% of Sand)
Maximum Thickness Single Sand = 57 ft

Sandstone Bed Thickness (feet) Sherwood\.....\Fig11-HistogramsNAB-COST1-SandThicknesses.cdr

Figure 11: Statistical summaries for sandstone bed thicknesses for North Aleutian basin play sequences. The
Tolstoi sequence is treated in two parts because virtually all sandstones below 10,380 feet bkb are impermeable
owing to diagenesis of volcanic framework grains and implosion of the pore system.

101
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Core Porosity vs Depth
Conventional Core Plugs and Percussion Sidewall Cores

45
Porosity % = -0.0022[Depth] + 44.29
40 R2 = 0.6734 (n=312)

35 Floor Effective Porosity at

10,380 ft bkb (21.45% porosity)
Core Porosity % (Helium)

Milky River Biogenic Gas Play Sequence

30
Bear Lake-Stepovak Play Sequence

25

20

Tolstoi Play Sequence

15

10

5
Sherwood\....\Fig12-NorthAleutianCOST1CoreData.xls
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Depth (feet bkb)

Figure 12: Core porosity versus depth in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with linear regression function for porosity decline with depth. All data from
Core Laboratories (1983).

102
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Porosity vs Permeability
Conventional Core Plugs and Percussion Sidewall Cores

10000

1000
Core Permeability, millidarcys (Air)

100

10

1 Permeability = 0.0046e0.3423[Porosity %]
R2 = 0.7466 (n = 288)

0.1

0.01

Sherwood\....\Fig13-NorthAleutianCOST1CoreData.xls

0.001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Core Porosity % (Helium)

Figure 13: Core porosity versus permeability for sandstones, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with correlation. All data from Core Laboratories (1983).

103
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Permeability vs Depth
Conventional Core Plugs and Percussion Sidewall Cores

10000

Floor for Effective Porosity (Only Microporosity > 10,380 ft)

Tolstoi (Lower
Seismic Horizon "A"at 2,510 ft bkb Tertiary) Play (2)
1000
Permeability (Air), millidarcys

100

Seismic Horizon "D" at 10,380 ft bkb

Seismic Horizon "C"at 7,900 ft bkb
10
Bear Lake-Stepovak
Play (1)
1

Permeability (md) = 14766e-0.0007317[Depth]

0.1
R2 = 0.4693 (n = 288)
Sherwood \....\Fig14-NorthAleutianCOST1CoreData.xls

0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Depth, feet bkb

Figure 14: Core permeability versus depth for sandstones, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with function for permeability decline with depth. All data from
Core Laboratories (1983).

104
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Core Porosity Histograms, Bear Lake-Stepovak and Tolstoi Play Sequences

Bear Lake-Stepovak Play Sequence

2,510-7,900 ft bkb
n = 88
Mean = 31.4705%
Standard Deviation = 5.3704%
1% of Samples < 10% Porosity
Probability (%)

Normal Fit

Upper Tolstoi Play Sequence

7,900-10,380 ft bkb
n = 139
Mean = 25.2950%
Standard Deviation = 6.1564%
3% of Samples < 10% Porosity
Probability

Normal Fit

Lower Tolstoi Play Sequence

10,380-17,155 ft bkb
n = 84
Mean = 14.7679%
Standard Deviation = 6.4896%
Probability (%)

21% of Samples < 10% Porosity

Normal Fit

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Core Porosity (%)
Conventional and Percussion Sidewall Cores
Sherwood\...\Fig15-NABPorosityHistograms.cdr

Figure 15: Porosity histograms for Bear Lake-Stepovak, Upper Tolstoi, and Lower Tolstoi play sequences from
311 conventional and sidewall core samples. Tolstoi sandstones below 10,380 feet bkb are essentially impermeable
because of diagenesis of volcanic framework grains and collapse of the pore system. All data from Core
Laboratories (1983).

105
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Core Permeability Histograms for Bear Lake-Stepovak and Tolstoi Play Sequences

Bear Lake-Stepovak Play Sequence

2,510-7,900 ft bkb
n = 80
Geometric Average = 168 md (Log10 = 2.22452)
Standard Deviation = 7 md (Log10 = 0.86774)
Arithmetic Average = 713 md
1% of Samples < 1md
4% of Samples < 10 md
Probability

Normal Fit

Log10 Permeability (md)

Upper Tolstoi Play Sequence

7,900-10,380 ft bkb
n = 132
Geometric Average = 39 md (Log10 = 1.5924)
Standard Deviation = 14 md (Log10 = 1.1525)
Arithmetic Average = 295 md
11% of Samples < 1 md
32% of Samples < 10 md
Probability

Normal Fit

Log10 Permeability (md)

Lower Tolstoi Play Sequence

10,380-17,155 ft bkb
n = 75
Geometric Average = 0.34 md (Log10 = -0.46913)
Standard Deviation = 19 md (Log10 = 1.2877)
Arithmetic Average = 26 md
68% of Samples < 1 md
Probability

84% of Samples < 10 md

Normal Fit

Log10 Permeability (md)

5
0.01 0.10 1.0 10.0 100 1,000 10,000 10
Permeability (Air, millidarcys)
Sherwood\....\Fig16-NABPermeabilityHistograms.cdr

Figure 16: Permeability histograms for Bear Lake-Stepovak, Upper Tolstoi, and Lower Tolstoi play sequences
from 287 conventional and percussion sidewall core samples. Tolstoi sandstones below 10,380 feet bkb are
essentially impermeable because of cementation, diagenesis of volcanic framework grains, and collapse of the pore
system. All data from Core Laboratories (1983).

106
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Vitrinite Reflectance (Ro%)

10
Isograd Depths As Penetrated/Forecast By Well
(No Fault Gap Correction) Projection of lower Ro% trend to Ro% at base of upper
0.50 Ro% Top Early Oil Generation Zone at 10,372 ft bkb (Penetrated) sequence suggests a 647 ft gap at a normal fault
0.60 Ro% Top Peak Oil Generation Zone at 12,397 ft bkb (Penetrated)
penetrated by the well at 15,620 ft bkb
0.80 Ro% Top Wet Gas Generation Zone; Hanging Wall of Fault at 15,620 ft bkb (Penetrated)
0.88 Ro% Foot Wall of Fault at 15,620 ft bkb (Penetrated)
1.00 Ro% Peak Oil Generation at 16,513 ft bkb (Penetrated)
1.07 Ro% Peak Wet Gas, Top Dry Gas/Coaly Matter Generation at 16,984 ft bkb (Penetrated)
1.35 Ro% Base Oil Generation Zone at 18,604 ft bkb (Forecast Below Data)
2.00 Ro% Liquid Floor at 21,345 ft bkb (Forecast Below Data; Basement at ~20,800 ft bkb)
Vitrinite Reflectance (%)

Regional Depth Forecasts Should Add 647 ft to Isograds Below Fault at 15,620 ft bkb

Ro% (Below Ft Gap) = 0.0936e0.00014345(Depth BKB)

Seismic Hz "B"

Seismic Hz "C"

Seismic Hz "D"
R2 = 0.7361 (n = 10)

1 Cuttings 1.097% Ro

Fault Gap (647 ft) at 15620 ft

Cuttings @ TD (17,155 ft bkb)
SidewallCoreData

Angular Unconformity
16,028.5-16,701 ft bkb
Conventional Core Data
Conventional Core Data
Fit to All Data
Fit to All Data
Expon. (Cuttings)

Ro% [Above Ft Gap] = 0.1966e0.00009(Depth BKB)

R2 = 0.9439 (n = 84)

Sherwood \...\Fig17-NorAleutCOST1VitRefData.xls

0.1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Depth (feet, bkb)

Figure 17: Vitrinite reflectance data for 94 samples of cuttings, conventional cores, and percussion sidewall cores in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well,
with statistical fits and forecasts for depths of important isograds. All analyses prepared by Robertson Research (1983). Critical isograd values from Dow
(1977a, fig. 3) and Waples (1980).

107
 A
ALASKA

ARE
Iliamna Lake

G
NIN
Kuka L.

LAN
CS P
58° 164°

IN O
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
Brooks
BAS

-7
160°

,0
-8,000
Bristol Bay

0
0

-6
158°
TIAN

,0
Great

0
-8,426 ft Basins 2 156°

0
Be
-9,000 -9,612 ftcharof La
Areas of Possible Gas, Condensate, and Great
LEU

ke
Basins 1
Oil Generation (Sufficient Thermal -10,000
Becharof Lake 1 es Alaska 1 Bear
Maturity) within Tertiary-age strata of
TH A

ak
-7,714 ft L Lee 1
hik Creek 1
as
Ug
North Aleutian and Amak Basins Finnegan 1
-6,519 ft
NOR

-11,000 Ugashik 1
Grammar 1

Wide Bay 1
+354 ft
-1,267 ft
Painter
Port
Fi

Creek 1

00
gu

North Aleutian Heiden 1

,0
re

Shelf COST 1
-12,474 ft

-1
6

Koniag 1
0
56° ,00 -1,007 ft
-12,312 ft -12
St. George
COST 2
-11,00 Sale 92
Sandy
0 High Bid Tract
$24.36 MM River 1 EXPLANATION
-12,323 ft Bear -10,050 ft Koniag 1
Monkshood 1
Lake
Well, Plugged and Abandoned, With Subsea Depth (feet)
Hoodoo
Bertha 1 0 to Top of Oil Generation Zone (0.6% vitrinite reflectance)
-4,00
Lake 1 -8,000 ft -1,007 ft
Big River 1
-7,000 ft
-12,3 Cathedral Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92, $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Hoodoo
12 (e River 1
Lake 2 -3,428
st) ft
Area of Possible Oil Generation (Sufficient Thermal
Canoe Maturity) from Tertiary-Age [<65 Ma] Strata within North
Bay 1 Aleutian Basin). Uplifts in southwest part of North
Aleutian basin are highly generalized.

Lower Tertiary (33-39 Ma) Rocks Thermally Mature But

Dominantly Volcanic or Plutonic (Meshik Fm.)
David
River 1, 1A Tertiary-Age (<65 Ma) Strata >3,000 Feet Thick

-8,000 Depths (feet, subsea) to peak oil generation zone

(corresponding to 0.6% vitrinite reflectance)
Interpretation of North Aleutian COST 1 and Sandy River 1 Wells by K.W. Sherwood [2003];
0 50 interpretation of onshore wells from Johnsson and Howell (1996, U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 2142, plate 1) and Molenaar (1996a, same pub., figs. 3, 4, & 5). Area of oil generation

MILES Pacific Ocean compiled from merging 0.6% Ro isograd structure (this map) with structure maps on seismic
datums B, C, and D (Turner et al., 1988, MMS OCS Report MMS 88-0089, figs. 66, 67, and 68).

Sherwood\....\Fig18-NorthAleutianBasinThermalMaturity.cdr

Figure 18: Depth to top of oil generation zone (0.6% vitrinite reflectance) with probable areas of thermal maturity of Tertiary rocks sufficient for oil generation
in and beneath the North Aleutian basin. The North Aleutian basin is segmented by a 33-39 Ma volcanic center that invaded the basin in the area of the Port
Heiden 1 and Ugashik 1 wells, producing the volcanic flows and volcaniclastics of the Meshik Formation (age-equivalent to the Stepovak Formation).

108
 A
ALASKA

ARE
Iliamna Lake

G
NIN
Kuka L.

LAN
CS P
58° 164°

IN O
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
Brooks
BAS

160°
Bristol Bay 158°
TIAN

Great
Basins 2
204 Be
ch
156°
aro
f
Great Lake
Areas of Possible Gas, Condensate, and Oil
LEU

1127 Basins 1

Generation (Sufficient Thermal Maturity) within 474

Becharof Lake 1 ke
s Alaska 1 Bear
TH A

La Lee 1
Tertiary-age strata of North Aleutian and Amak Basins Ug
as
hik Creek 1

Finnegan 1
0
NOR

Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
All Volcanics Wide Bay 1
Painter 0
Creek 1
Port 577
Fi

North Aleutian
gu

Heiden 1
Shelf COST 1
re

0 ft Sediments 0
6

(All Volcanics) Koniag 1

56°
4,758 +
St. George
COST 2 2763 +
Sandy
140 River 1
EXPLANATION
Bear
Lake
Monkshood 1
Bertha 1
1,713 Hoodoo
Koniag 1 Well, Plugged and Abandoned, With Thickness (Feet) of
Lake 1
Big River 1 Tertiary Rocks Within Oil Generation Zone (0.6% to 1.35%
728 49+
Cathedral
3,927 4,578+ Vitrinite Reflectance). “+” Indicates Minimum Thickness
River 1 Hoodoo Because of Incomplete Penetration.
Lake 2
est. ~200 ft Canoe Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92, $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Bay 1
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State, $1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Area of Possible Oil Generation (Sufficient Thermal
Maturity) from Tertiary-Age [<65 Ma] Strata within North
David
Aleutian Basin). Uplifts in southwest part of North
River 1, 1A Aleutian basin are highly generalized.

Lower Tertiary (33-39 Ma) Rocks Thermally Mature But

Dominantly Volcanic or Plutonic (Meshik Fm.)

0 50 Interpretation of North Aleutian COST 1 and Sandy River 1 Wells by K.W. Sherwood [2003];
interpretation of onshore wells from Johnsson and Howell (1996, U.S. Geological Survey

MILES Pacific Ocean Bulletin 2142, plate 1) and Molenaar (1996a, same pub., figs. 3, 4, & 5). Area of oil generation
compiled from merging 0.6% Ro isograd structure (this map) with structure maps on seismic
datums B, C, and D (Turner et al., 1988, MMS OCS Report MMS 88-0089, figs. 66, 67, and 68).

Sherwood\....\Fig19-NorthAleutianBasinThicknessOilWindow.cdr

Figure 19: Isopach map for thickness of Tertiary-age rocks within oil generation zone (0.6% to 1.35% vitrinite reflectance) with probable areas of thermal
maturity sufficient for oil generation within and beneath North Aleutian basin.

109
 Cathedral River 1 Well
Generation Potential (TOC) and Hydrocarbon Type (Hydrogen Index)

MATURITY
THERMAL
Total Organic Carbon (TOC, Wt.%) Hydrogen Index (mg S2/gTOC)
0 1 2 3 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 0
T.A.I.
2.5
Exlog-Cuttings Exlog-Cuttings
NAKNEK FM.
(UPPER JURASSIC)
2000 2000

OIL GENERATION
GOOD

GOOD
POOR

VERY
FAIR

4000 4000

SHELIKOF FM.
(MIDDLE JURASSIC)
6000 6000 An oil-base additive (Soltex) was
added to the drilling mud below
7,500 ft and may have
contaminated cuttings samples
Depth (feet, bkb)

3.0

GENERATION
8000 8000

DRY GAS
3.5
KIALAGVIK FM.
(MIDDLE JURASSIC)

10000 10000 3.8

1.47%
Ro

TALKEETNA FM. OIL DESTRUCTION AND

12000 (LOWER JURASSIC) 12000 GAS GENERATION

14000 14000
GAS & OIL

SOURCE

KAMISHAK FM.
SOURCE
SOURCE

(UPPER TRIASSIC)
GAS

OIL

(re-assigned to Jurassic
by Mickey et al., 2005)

3.8
16000 16000
Source Rock Potential Classes from Peters (1986, AAPG 70/3, 320, tbl. 1). Stratigraphy from Detterman (1990, USGS OF 90-279). TOC and pyrolysis data from Exlog (1982;
available as AK Geol. Matl’s Center Report 2). T.A.I. data from Anderson et al. (1977a; available as AK Geol. Matl’s Center Report 47). Potential Hydrocarbon Type Classes from
Peters (1986, AAPG 70/3, 320, tbl. 2). T.A.I. (Thermal Alteration Index) Values and Thermal Maturity Zones from Boreham and Powell (1993, AAPG Stud. Geol. 38, fig. 5)
Sherwood\...\Fig20-CathedralRiver1TOC&HIPlot.cdr

Figure 20: Generation potential (total organic carbon) and hydrocarbon type (hydrogen index) indicators for
Mesozoic rocks in the Cathedral River 1 well. Analyses conducted and reported by Exlog (1982). T.A.I. (thermal
alteration index) data from Anderson et al. (1977a). Vitrinite reflectance data point at 10,650 feet bkb from
Robertson Research (1982).

110
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Total Organic Carbon (% Wt.) Thermal
Maturity
0.1 1 10 100
0
Exlog-Cuttings (Coal Retained); n = 60

300
150
Exlog-Conventional Cores; n = 62
Exlog-Sidewall Cores; n = 12
Robertson Research-Cuttings; n = 262
Robertson Research-Sidewall Cores; n = 121
Robertson Research-Conventional Cores; n = 139
Exlog-Cuttings/Coal Removed (n=268)
2000

Coal
Sequence
4000
VE RY G O O D

6000
D epth (feet, bkb )

8000
Coal
S eq ue nce

Sequence
C oal

10000

12000

Coal
Sequence
S equ en ce

14000
C o al
GOOD
POO R

FA IR

16000

18000 Hydrogen Index data from Exlog (1983) and Roberston

Total organic carbon data from Exlog (1983) and Robertson
Research (1983, Apps. III, IV). Source Rock Potential
Classes from Peters (1986, AAPG 70/3, 320, tbl. 1).
Sherwood\....\Fig21-NoAleutianCOST1-TOC&HI.cdr
Research (1983, App. IV). Potential Hydrocarbon Type
Classes from Peters (1986, AAPG 70/3, 320, tbl. 2,
assume Ro=0.6%)

Figure 21: Generation potential (total organic carbon) and hydrocarbon type (hydrogen index) indicators for
Tertiary rocks in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. Analyses from Exlog (1983) and Robertson Research
(1983). Posted vitrinite reflectance values are from data fits in figure 17.

111
 Coal-Bearing vs Coal-Free Cuttings & Core Samples
Pyrolysis and Elemental Analysis

A B
Type I (Oil)

Type II (Oil & Gas)

Range of Coal
Compositions Source Type Classifications and Range
of Coal Compositions from Peters
(1986, AAPG Bull. 70/3, p. 318)

Separation of coal fragments from Type III (Gas)

cuttings attempted by water
flotation by Exlog (1983, p. 8)

C D

Algal Coals

High-S, Lignite, or Wood?

Source Type Classifications adapted from Tissot and Welte

Source Type Classifications adapted from Tissot and Welte
(1984, Pet. Fm. & Occ., 2nd Ed., Fig. II.4.14) for H/C vs O/C.
This diagram plots H/C vs [O+S]/C and relationship to
classifications may be distorted by sulfur content.
(1984, Pet. Fm. & Occ., 2nd Ed., Fig. II.4.14) for H/C vs O/C.
This diagram plots H/C vs [O+S]/C and relationship to
classifications may be distorted by sulfur content. Area of
algal (e.g., boghead, cannel) coals from Tissot and Welte
(1984, p. 241, fig. II.8.8).

Sherwood\....\Fig22New-CoalySWCVanKrevelenDiagram.cdr

Figure 22: (A) Modified Van Krevelen plot comparing Exlog (1983) pyrolysis data for cuttings with coal partly removed (by flotation in water) and cuttings
with coal content retained. The fields of the two data sets essentially overlap; (B) Sidewall and conventional core samples, with coal-bearing and coal-free
samples plotted separately-all samples with HI>151 are described as coal-bearing; (C) Van Krevelen-type plot showing elemental data for sidewall and
conventional core samples, with coal-bearing and coal-free samples plotted separately; (D) Van Krevelen-type plot with elemental analyses for all coal-bearing
samples with HI>150 (shows that these samples are dominated by Type III kerogens). Tertiary rocks penetrated by the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well are all
gas-prone and offer little potential for generation of oil. All core data from Robertson Research (1983, Apps. IV, VII).

112
 GAS SEEPS, ALASKA PENINSULA
Carbon Dioxide

Bering Sea ALASKA Iliamna Lake

REA

149
ING A

Kuka L.
ANN

58° 164°
Naknek 76
IN PL

King Nakne

149 75
k Lake
Salmon
162° Lake
N BAS

Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° Y
FA
BA
158° UIN
Great
Alaska
UTIA

BR
Basins 2

Great
Be
ch
aro
f La
ke
156°
Triassic Oil
75
Peninsula
Lathrop 1
H ALE

Basins 1 Source Rocks

McNally 1
Alaska 1 Bear
Becharof Lake 1 kes Creek 1
Tested Gas shik La Lee 1
90 Mcfd Uga
Gas Seeps
NORT

2000 Finnegan 1 Pacific 1

--

e
IAN

lin
Costello 1

tic
00 Feet

UT SIN
Pacific 2

An
nt <3,0 Ugashik 1

hik
eme Costello 2
LE BA 50 50
c Bas

as
usti
Aco
Wide Bay 1 Grammer 1
H A AY

Ug
3000
Fig

RT L B
OCS Sal Port
e 92 Heiden
NO ISTO
Port Painter
ur

North Heiden 1 Creek 1

e

76
Aleutian Oil Shows C Oil Stain
BR AR
Jurassic Oil
6

COST 1 Gas Shows 00 00 60 Source Rocks

00 70
4000 50 oic NIC
esoz
ic M t CA Koniag 1
56° mat en
oz oi
c OL
GE ST
M ag Basem Mes EV
. St. George men
tary ent NG
BA ORG COST Prospect 11 collected Sedi Base
m
RA
SIN E 2 $69.4 MM in Sale 92 N
Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92
(73% of Sale)
Sandy TIA
Source Rocks?
EU Chignik
High Bid Tract
River 1
AL
$24.36 MM
Bear Oil Shows
Lake
ILL
CK H S UP
Monkshood 1 Port

BLA
Oil Show Bertha 1 Hoodoo Moller
Shallow LIFT Lake 1 Big River 1
Gas Shows
5000
4000

AMAK BA
SIN
Cathedral
River 1
Oil Staining
Gas Shows
Hoodoo
Lake 2
Oil Shows
Cook Inlet
6000
7000 Canoe
Bay 1
Sand
Balboa
Bay Oil & Gas
Cold

Fields (n=23)
Point
Bay
False
Pass
David
River 1, 1A
Oil Shows
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
50
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean
Sherwood\....\AkPenGasSeepLocationMap.cdr, revised 24 July 03
Hydrocarbons Nitrogen + Oxygen+ Argon
+ Hydrogen + Hydrogen Sulfide + Helium

Sherwood\....\Fig23-GasSeeps&DataAkPen.cdr

Figure 23: Analyses of gas compositions from Alaska Peninsula seeps and oil and gas fields in northern Cook Inlet
basin. Alaska Peninsula gas seeps are mostly carbon dioxide and probably reflect magmatic intrusion and
decarbonation of limestones in the subsurface. All data are from Moore and Sigler (1987, p. 15-21).

113
 Becharof Lake 1 Well
Depth Profile for Methane Carbon Isotopes on Headspace Gas, Molecular Composition (and Inferred Isotope) for DST 5 Gas Sample

13 Thermal
Methane Del C (PDB) Maturity
(Vitrinite
Reflectance)

-90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10

0
A Separation of biogenic and thermogenic methane at
-55.0 Del13C (PDB) from Hunt (1979, p. 176)
B
1000 Milky
River
Fm.
2000
BIOGENIC
3000
GAS

Submature
FIELD
Bear
4000 Lake
Depth(feet, bkb)

Fm.

5000

Stepovak
THERMOGENICGAS

6000
Fm.
BIOGENICGAS

7000
7,470-7,550 ft
DST5

0.6% 7929 ft
8000 THERMOGENIC
Tolstoi Oil
Fm. 1.3% 8420 ft
GAS FIELD
Gas

9000 1.77% Ro at TD at 9017 ft

9251 ft (proj.
2.0%
Liquid floor)
Jurassic-Cretaceous Plot classification fields from Schoell (1984)
Plutonic Rocks and Claypool and Kvenvolden (1983)

10000 Carbon isotope data from public well data file, Becharof Lake 1 well, Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission. Stratigraphy from correlations by authors. Thermal maturity isograds for
Becharof Lake 1 well from Johnsson and Howell (1996, pl. 1) and Molenaar (1996a).
Sherwood\....\Fig24-BecharofLakeCarbonIsotopes.cdr

Figure 24: A) Methane carbon isotope data for Amoco Becharof Lake 1 well. Gas is biogenic above 3,000 feet, and thermogenic below 5,500 feet. Both types
of gas are mixed in the intermediate interval from 3,000 to 5,500 feet. Data from AOGCC (1985, Carbon Isotope Ratios). B) Gas recovered from a flow test of
the interval 7,470 to 7,550 feet consists of 87.5% methane, 4.7% ethane, 2.3% propane, 0.8% butane, 1.0% hydrogen, and 3.7% “other” (AOGCC, 1985, DST
data) and classifies as thermogenic in cross-plot of Schoell (1984) and Claypool and Kvenvolden (1983).

114
 North Aleutian COST 1 Well
Interpretation of Depositional Environment and Thermal Maturity
Extracts From Show Interval 15,300 to 16,800 ft bkb
10
2003 Baseline-DGSI Data
1983 Robertson Research Data
r
n tt e

Ox duc
o a
ti M

Re
a ic

idi ing
tu r n
ga

zin
Ma Or nts e
us

g
o n m
ig en v iro es
r
Pristane/n-C17

e r E n rc
T l u
C oa c So ial
)
a t - ni er
1 Pe rga a ct
d O
a l /B t i on
Mi
xe ( A lg
r ada
r
a tte d eg
M Bi o
n ic Thermal maturity of show
rga interval = 0.78% to 1.04%
e O vitrinite reflectance
r in
Ma
Plot fields from Shanmugam (1985,
AAPG Bull., 69/8, 1241, fig. 4)

0.1
0.1 1 10
Phytane/n-C18
Sherwood\....\Fig25-NABCOST1-ExtractDepositionalEnvironment.cdr

Figure 25: Cross plot for Pristane/n-C17 versus Phytane/n-C18 ratios for rock extracts from the oil show interval in nonmarine Eocene Tolstoi Formation from
15,300 to 16,800 feet bkb in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. A terrigenous, coal-bearing depositional environment is indicated, consistent with a source
within Tertiary nonmarine rocks. All data from Baseline DGSI (2003) and Robertson Research (1983).

115
 PRISTANE/PHYTANE RATIOS FOR
EXTRACTS FROM NORTH ALEUTIAN
SHELF COST 1 WELL AND COOK INLET
OILS AND EXTRACTS
North Aleutian Basin COST 1
Eocene Nonmarine-Tolstoi Formation
Show Interval (15300-16800 ft bkb) Extracts
fSamples

Mean = 4.25
no

(n = 9)
Fractio

Tertiary (Nonmarine) Extracts & Oils

Cook Inlet Basin
amples

Mean = 5.76
(n = 7)
FractionofS

Mesozoic (Marine) Extracts & Oils

Alaska Peninsula & Cook Inlet Basin
1.4

Mean = 2.91
les

1.2 (n = 32)
amp

1.0
fS

Data for North Aleutian Basin COST 1 well by

Robertson Research for ARCO (1983) and by
0.8 Baseline-DGSI for Minerals Management Service
(2003). All other pristane/phytane data from Magoon
no

and Anders (1992)

0.6
ractio

0.4
F

0.2

0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pristane/Phytane
Sherwood\...\Fig26-NAB-Extracts-Pristane-PhytaneRatios.cdr

Figure 26: Histograms for Pristane/Phytane ratios of North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well extracts, Tertiary
(nonmarine) extracts and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts and oils. The thermal maturity of the oil show
interval in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well ranges from 0.78% to 1.04% vitrinite reflectance. These data
suggest that oil shows in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well originated from Tertiary nonmarine sources. All
data from Baseline DGSI (2003), Robertson Research (1983), and Magoon and Anders (1992).

116
 Carbon Isotopes of Rock Extracts and Oil from Fields and Seeps
North Aleutian COST 1 Well, Alaska Peninsula, and Cook Inlet

-25.0
Data for North Aleutian Basin COST 1 well by
Baseline-DGSI for Minerals Management Service
(2003). All other isotope data from Magoon and
Anders (1992)
ls
Oi
Aromatic Fraction Carbon Isotope Composition

-26.0 e
a rin
onm
N

ls
-27.0 Oi Tertiary Nonmarine Oils
e
in and Rock Extracts
ar
M

-28.0
North Aleutian Shelf
COST 1 Well Extracts

-29.0

North Aleutian COST 1 Well Extracts 15700-16800 ft

Alaska Peninsula Oil Seeps [Mesozoic Rocks]
-30.0 Tertiary (Nonmarine) Rock Extracts
Jurassic (Marine) Rock Extracts
Jurassic and Triassic Tertiary (Nonmarine) Oil and Condensate
Sofer Marine Oils and Rock
Lines Mesozoic-Sourced (Marine) Oils
Extracts Triassic (Marine) Rock Extracts
-31.0
-32.0 -31.0 -30.0 -29.0 -28.0 -27.0 -26.0 -25.0
Saturate Fraction Carbon Isotope Composition
Sherwood\.....\Fig27-NAB-Extract-CarbonIsotopes-SoferPlot.cdr

Figure 27: Sofer cross plot for carbon isotopes for aromatics and saturates, comparing North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well extracts, Tertiary (nonmarine) extracts
and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts and oils. The thermal maturity of the oil show interval in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well ranges from 0.78% to
1.04% vitrinite reflectance. These data suggest that oil shows in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well originated from Tertiary nonmarine sources. All data
from Baseline DGSI (2003), Robertson Research (1983), and Magoon and Anders (1992).

117
 ASATURATES, AROMATICS, AND NON-HYDROCARBONS
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well, Alaska Peninsula, and Cook Inlet Extracts and Oils

EXPLANATION
MMSAK2003-1 Baseline-DGSI rock extracts from core
and cuttings composite samples, North 100% SATURATES
Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (n = 2)
RR-3 Robertson Research rock extracts from core
chips, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (n = 7)
Tertiary (Nonmarine) Rock Extracts
from Cook Inlet (n = 5)
Triassic (Marine) Rock Extracts from
Alaska Peninsula (n = 3)
Jurassic (Marine) Rock Extracts from Alaska Data for North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well by
Peninsula and Cook Inlet (n = 9) Robertson Research for ARCO (1983) and by
Baseline DGSI for Minerals Management Service
Tertiary (Nonmarine) Condensates (2003). All other liquid chromatograph data from
from northern Cook Inlet (n = 2) Magoon and Anders (1992)
Oil Seeps, Alaska Peninsula near Becharof
Lake (n = 2)
Mesozoic
Mesozoic (Marine) Oils and Condensates from (Marine)
northern Cook Inlet (n = 18) Oils
MMSAK2003-2
Upper (Cuttings)
50
Triassic 50
(Puale Bay)
Extracts

RR-7
Middle Jurassic RR-4
(Cook Inlet & Puale Bay)
Extracts

RR-5
RR-3
RR-6

Tertiary
(Cook Inlet) RR-2
MMSAK2003-1
Extracts (Core)

RR-1
50

100% AROMATICS 100% NON-HYDROCARBONS*

NON-HYDROCARBONS: NSO’s + Asphaltenes (North Aleutian Basin COST 1 Extracts)
Resins + Asphaltenes (All Other Data for Extracts & Oils)
Sherwood\...\Fig28a-TrianglePlot-Sat-Aro-NSO.cdr

B STERANE RATIOS
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well Extracts

C27 STERANES
Sample MMSAK2003-1 (Core Chips, 16,006-16,720 ft)
B CABBS (218), C27-C28-C29 Steranes
A CAAAR (217), C27-C28-C29 Steranes

Sample MMSAK2003-2 (Cuttings, 15,700-16,800 ft)

B CABBS (218), C27-C28-C29 Steranes
A CAAAR (217), C27-C28-C29 Steranes
PLANKTON

Facies classifications after Huang and

Meinschein (1979, Geochim. Cos. Acta,
v.43, 739) 50
50

OPEN MARINE

A
B
B A
ESTUARINE

TERRESTRIAL HIGHER
LACUSTRINE PLANTS
50

C28 STERANES C29 STERANES

Sherwood\...\Fig28b-TrianglePlot-Steranes.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig28-TrianglePlots-Sats-Aroms & Steranes.cdr

Figure 28: A) Triangular plot for saturates versus aromatics versus non-hydrocarbons, North Aleutian Shelf COST
1 well extracts, Tertiary (nonmarine) extracts and oils, and Mesozoic (marine) extracts and oils. The thermal
maturity of the oil show interval in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well ranges from 0.78% to 1.04% vitrinite
reflectance. These data suggest that oil shows in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well originated from Tertiary
nonmarine sources. All data from Baseline DGSI (2003), Robertson Research (1983), and Magoon and Anders
(1992). B) Triangular plot for C27-C28-C29 steranes for 2 extracts from interval 15,700 to 16,800 ft bkb in the
North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. Data from Baseline DGSI (2003 and Appendix 3 of this report). C29 steranes
are dominant but ratios suggest mixing of marine and nonmarine environments. Facies classifications after Huang
and Meinschein (1979) and Shanmugam (1985, fig. 5)

118
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well, M/Z 191 Chromatograms for Terpanes
A. Show Interval Extract: (Sample MMSAK2003-1: Cores 18 & 19, 16006-16029 and 16701.2-16720 ft bkb, Composited)

Thermal Maturity of Show Interval: 0.78% to 1.04% Vitrinite Reflectance

B. Show Interval Extract: (Sample MMSAK2003-2: Cuttings, 15,700 to 16,800 ft bkb, Composited)

Unidentified
Peak

Thermal Maturity of Show Interval: 0.78% to 1.04% Vitrinite Reflectance

Sherwood\....\Fig29-2003-1MZ191Fragmentogram18-65.cdr

Figure 29: (A) Excerpt from M/Z 191 chromatogram by Baseline DGSI (2003) for an extract from sample
MMSAK2003-1, composited from cores 18 and 19, 16,006-16,720 ft bkb, North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well. (B)
Entire M/Z 191 chromatogram by Baseline DGSI (2003) for an extract from sample MMSAK2003-2 composited
from cuttings, 15,700-16,800 ft bkb. (When the interval from 15,700-16,800 ft was drilled, the well was uncased
below 9-5/8 inch casing at 13,287 ft bkb (Turner et al., 1988, p. 7) and subject to contamination by cave.) Both
chromatograms show abundant C19 to C30 tricyclic terpanes, with C23 + C24 peak areas dominant in both samples
(C19-tri/C23-tri = 0.43 to 0.75). In the lower chromatogram (for the cuttings extract), a prominent unidentified
terpane between peak A (C19-tri) and peak B (C20-tri) is not present in the core extract. This unidentified peak is
prominent among condensates of nonmarine (Tertiary) origin in the northern Cook Inlet (Magoon and Anders, 1992,
fig. 13.9, spl. 18, and p. 264) but absent from other Cook Inlet samples. Magoon and Anders (1992) and Magoon
(1994) have noted that abundant tricyclic terpanes characterize extracts from Upper Triassic rocks at Puale Bay
(located in fig. 2) and some oils in southern Cook Inlet basin. However, several other parameters (figs. 25, 26, 27,
and 28) suggest that the extracts from the “oil show interval” in the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well probably
originated from Tertiary nonmarine rocks.

119
 North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 Well
Lopatin Burial History Model and Critical Events Timelines

TEMPERATURE ( F)
EQUIVALENT Ro%
CENOZOIC

O
MODELED TTI &

PRESENT-DAY
SUBSURFACE
REFLECTANCE
OBSERVED
Cret.

DEPTH

SEQUENCE
DEPTH

VITRINITE

(Ro%)
(ft bkb)

PLAY
(ft bkb) PALEOCENE EOCENE OLIGOCENE MIOCENE PLIO. Q.
Early Late Early Middle Late Early Late Early Middle Late E L
65.0 61.0 54.8 49.0 37.0 33.7 28.5 23.8 16.4 11.2 5.3 3.6 1.8
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 0
SEISMIC HZ A MR Q

MILKY RIVER
(Early Pliocene)

SEQUENCE
Fa

(PLAY 4)
ult
1000 Ba
se 60 1000
??

Ga
To Be
pS ar

p
te Lak

(64
S po eF
vak
(La EISM
m.
Ba

7f
Fm
2000 Thickness of se te I . 2000
Oli C HZ

t) a
t1
sedimentary go
cen B
of

5,6
column beneath 0.25
W
e) 80

20
Tolstoi
e
3000 3000

Ba
base of well is
ll (

ft
unknown, but Fm.

se
Fa

Top
may range up to ??
ult

SEQUENCE (PLAYS 1, 3)
Ste

BEAR LAKE-STEPOVAK
100

Tols
3,000 feet S
Ga

4000 (Ea EISM 4000

pov
IC
p-

rly

toi
Oli HZ
Co

ak
go C
Es

cen

Fm
(B

rre

Fm
Un eme

tim

5000 e) 120 5000

as

ct

.
kn nt

ate

ed
La

)
ow No

dB

te

6000 6000
as

Pa
nM tP

SE 140
eo

0.35
e

IS
(La MIC
oc
es ene

fS

te E H
en

oce Z D
oz tra

7000 7000
e

eB
dim

n e)
oic te

160
elo
en
(G d by

tar

0.40 8000
8000
W
ra

yF

)
% Ro
ell
nit CO

(~ 0.5
ill

180
?

TTI=3
ic? ST

9000 9000
Y O IL 0.45
)R W

EARL ATION
oc ell)

R
GENE 200
ks

10000 10000
?? o)
.6% R
3
0 (~ 0
0.50

TOLSTOI SEQUENCE
(0.50% Ro)
TTI=1
11000 220 11000

(PLAY 2)
0.55

12000
TTI-Ro Correlations ?? Fau 12000
10
lt G (0.60% Ro) 240
TTI Ro% Maturity PEAK OIL ap 0.60
3 0.50 Shallowest Top Oil Generation GENERATION
13000 13000
10 0.60 Top Peak Oil Generation Zone
% Ro)
75 1.00 Peak Oil Generation ??
75 (~ 1.0 260

14000
92 1.07 Peak Wet Gas, Top Dry Gas Gen. TTI= 14000
180 1.35 Base Oil Generation Zone 0.70
900 2.00 Liquid Floor 280
75
Ro) 0.75
.07%
15000 (1.00% Ro) 15000
92 (~ 1 Well Da
ta
0.80 92
TTI= 1.00%
Ro Fr om
?????
(1.07% Ro) 300
Ro)
Ft Gap
16000 16000
5% GAS (647 ft)
(~ 1.3 0% R
o 0.88
180 = 1.0 etched
) GEN. 180
TTI= Ref. k
0.92 (1.35% Ro)
17000 a l Vit. Hand-S 21.2
1.00
320 17000
Actu d Path Ma? 324 Drilled TD at

(Iso
gra ?? 1.07 at TD 17,155 ft bkb
o) 1.097 (17,155 ft bkb)

%R
567
18000
2.00 at TD at TD 18000
(~

Fault Gap-Corrected
(Corrected, (1.80% Ro)
900

TD at 17,802 ft bkb
17,802 ft bkb)
=
19000 TTI 900 19000
1.35 (2.00% Ro)
?? (Proj.)
20000 20000

21000
Software: Lopatin-From Here to Maturity, ver. 1.0, 1985, by Platte River Associates, Inc., and D. 21000
Waples.Geologic time scale from Palmer (1998). TTI thresholds from Waples (1980, AAPG, Basin Floor
at 20,800 ft (Est)
64/6, p. 916). TTI calculations and Ro data do not correlate below 15,000 feet md.
22000 2.00 22000
(Proj.)

TIMELINES--CRITICAL PETROLEUM SYSTEM EVENTS FROM BURIAL MODEL MODEL INPUT DATA
Today
Hz “D” 28.5 Ma Deposition Bear Lake/Stepovak 4.5 Ma

Traps Form on Flanks of Basement Horsts Traps Form in Drape Anticlines Over Basement Horsts 3.0
61+ Ma (Rifting, Horst Elevation) Ma?
(Compaction, Drape Folds, Minor Faulting)
35.4 Ma
38.5 Ma?
Early Oil Generation (TTI>3) (Basin Floor [Est])
31.7 Ma
(Base of Well, Corrected for Fault Gap)

Peak Oil Generation (TTI>10) 34.4 Ma ?

TTI=75
(Basin Floor [Est])
27.0 Ma 17.3 Ma
(Base of Well, Corrected) (Base of Well)

Deeper Results from Lopatin Model Not Supported by Well Thermal Maturity Data
24.2 Ma ?
End of Oil Generation; Main Gas Generation (TTI>180) (Basin Floor [Est])
7.7 Ma
(Base of Well, Corrected for
Fault Gap)
10.0 Ma ?
Liquid Floor (TTI>900) (Basin Floor [Est])
Today
Sherwood\....\Fig30-BurialHistory-NAB-COST1.cdr

Figure 30: Burial history plot for North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well, with timelines for critical petroleum system
events.

120
 A. Petroleum System Elements for North Aleutian Basin
Amak Basin Black Hills Uplift North Aleutian Basin

NON-SEALING OVERBURDEN
SEISMIC HORIZON “A”

PRINCIPAL RESERVOIR SEQUENCE

SEISM
IC HOR
IZON “B
”

ION
RAT
MI SEIS
GR M IC HO
DISRUPTED AT RIZO

MIG
IO SEI N “C
OIL POOLS N SM I ” REGIONAL
CH
ORI SE A
Z ON
“D L
” + + + + + + +
THERMALLY-MATURE H z “D
(POST-GENERATIVE) Top Oil & Gas Generation Zone + + + + + + + + ”
BA + Fractures + + +
MESOZOIC ROCKS SE
ME + + + +
NT GAS/COND + + +
UN +
CO KITCHEN GAS/COND
+ + +
NF + KITCHEN
OR + + + +
MI T
Y + + +Bsm
+ + + + +t
+ + + + + +
+ + + + GRANITIC
+ + ROCKS
BRUIN BAY FAULT??
Sherwood\...\PetroleumSystemElements.cdr
Adapted from unpublished drawing by G.C. Martin (ca. 1990)

B. Play Concepts for North Aleutian Basin

Amak Basin Black Hills Uplift North Aleutian Basin
Milky River Play [4] (Biogenic Gas) Milky River Play [4] (Biogenic Gas)

SEISMIC HORIZON “A”

Black Hills Uplift-
Amak Basin Play [3] Bear Lake-Stepovak Play
(Oil and Gas) [1] (Oil and Gas)

SEISMIC
HORIZ
ON “B”
SEIS
M IC HO
RIZO
SEI N “C
SM I ”
CH
O RI Tolstoi Play [2]
ZO N
“D ” + + + + + + + (Oil and Gas)
Mesozoic Deformed + + + + + + + +
BA + Fractures + + + H z “D
Sedimentary Rocks SE Tolstoi Play [2] ”
ME + + + +
Play [5] (Oil) NT (Oil and Gas) + + +
UN +
CO + + +
NF + Bs
OR + + + + mt
MI T + + +
Y + Mesozoic Buried + + +
+
+ + + Granitic Hills Play [6] + + +
+ + + + (Oil and Gas)
+ +
BRUIN BAY FAULT??
Sherwood\...\PlayConcepts-CrossSection.cdr
Adapted from unpublished drawing by G.C. Martin (ca. 1990)

Sherwood\...\Fig31-PetSystemElements&Plays-NAleutBsn.cdr

Figure 31: Schematic cross sections illustrating petroleum system elements and play concepts for North Aleutian
Basin OCS Planning Area.

A) Petroleum system elements, including regional reservoir sequence floored by a regional seal and underlain by
deep gas/condensate “kitchens” in grabens flanking uplifts. Petroleum generated in “kitchens” migrates to traps in
shallow reservoir formations draped over basement uplifts via faults that pierce the regional seal. The Black Hills
uplift may be reached by long-distance lateral migration of petroleum across highly faulted areas. Fault disruption
of Mesozoic oil pools beneath the Black Hills uplift may release oil into overlying strata. Arrows show hypothetical
migration paths for gas (red) and oil (green).

B) Six oil and gas plays defined for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, separated on the basis of reservoir
character, structural style, and access to petroleum sources.

121
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

NING
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

Y
BA
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
Basins 2 BR
Be 156°
BAS

ch
aro
f
Great Lake Bear
PLAY 1: BEAR LAKE-STEPOVAK FMS. Basins 1 Creek 1
TIAN

Oil Shows
* Gas Shows
Becharof Lake 1 akes Alaska 1
(Oligocene-Miocene)
LEU

Tested Gas shik L Lee 1

a
90 Mcfd Ug
2000 Oil Shows
TH A

Finnegan 1
Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
NOR

IN
AS
NB
Wide Bay 1
3000 4000
T IA Triassic & Jurassic
North Aleutian
EU Painter
AL
Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Shelf COST 1 Port Creek 1

gu

TH
Oil Shows Heiden 1 (Puale Bay)
R
re

Gas Shows
NO00 600
0 0 LA
6

700 n t
50 as eme SU
Top Prospect
ic B NIN Koniag 1
ozo
collected $69.4 MM in
nt
56° Mes eme PE
Sale 92 (73% of Sale)

mat
ic Bas
Mag zoic
esos
KA
ST y M ock AS
.G
St. George
COST 2 ime
ntar ertiary R Rocks AL
Sed Sandy M esozoic
T

BA EOR Source Rocks?

Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92
High Bid Tract
SIN GE $24.36 MM
Bear
River 1
Oil Shows
Lake
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows 4000 Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo
EXPLANATION
5000
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
Well, Plugged and Abandoned
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows
7000 Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
6000
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
River 1, 1A
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd) Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figur
e6
Seismic Profile
0 50
Pacific Ocean
* Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)
MILES
Sherwood\....\Fig32-Play1BearLakeMap.cdr

Figure 32: Area of play 1, Bear Lake-Stepovak play, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

122
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

NING
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

Y
BA
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
Basins 2 BR
Be 156°
BAS

ch
aro
f
Great Lake Bear
Basins 1 Creek 1
TIAN

PLAY 2: TOLSTOI FM. Becharof Lake 1 akes Alaska 1

*
Oil Shows
Gas Shows
LEU

Tested Gas shik L Lee 1

(Eocene-Oligocene) 90 Mcfd Ug
a

Oil Shows Finnegan 1

TH A

Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
NOR

IN
AS
NB
Wide Bay 1

TIA Triassic & Jurassic

North Aleutian EU Painter
AL Port Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Creek 1
Shelf COST 1
TH
(Puale Bay)
gu

Heiden 1
Oil Shows R
re

Gas Shows
NO ent LA
6

m
as e
Top Prospect
ozo
ic B NSU Koniag 1
collected $69.4 MM in
e s
me nt
NI
56°
Sale 92 (73% of Sale)
cM ase
Mag
mati ic B PE
ozo KA
ST ry Mes S
St. George nta A
.G COST 2 ime
Sed Sandy AL
BA EOR Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92

GE Source Rocks?
High Bid Tract
SI $24.36 MM River 1
N Bear
Lake
Oil Shows
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo EXPLANATION
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows Well, Plugged and Abandoned
Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David
River 1, 1A
Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figu
re 6 Seismic Profile
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean * Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)

Sherwood\....\Fig33-Play2TolstoiFmMap.cdr

Figure 33: Area of play 2, Tolstoi play, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

123
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

NING
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

Y
BA
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
Basins 2 BR
Be 156°
BAS

ch
aro
f
Great Lake Bear
Basins 1 Creek 1
TIAN

Oil Shows
* Gas Shows
Becharof Lake 1 akes Alaska 1
PLAY 3: BLACK HILLS
LEU

Tested Gas shik L Lee 1

a
90 Mcfd Ug
et Oil Shows Finnegan 1
TH A

0 Fe
UPLIFT-AMAK BASIN e m ent <
3,00
Ugashik 1
Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
NOR

Bas IN
Aco
ustic AS
NB
Wide Bay 1

TIA Triassic & Jurassic

EU Painter
AL
North Aleutian Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Port Creek 1
gu

Shelf COST 1
TH Heiden 1 (Puale Bay)
re

Oil Shows
R
Gas Shows
NO men
t
LA
6

ase
Top Prospect
o zo
ic B
t NSU Koniag 1
collected $69.4 MM in
e s e n
N I
56° ic M
Sale 92 (73% of Sale)
m
mat a se PE
Mag ic B
ozo KA
ST r y Mesocks S
St. George nta rtiary ocks
R A
.G COST 2
Sed
ime Te R AL
BA EOR Jur-Cret
oic
Oil Sale 92 oz
s
Sandy Me
Source Rocks? High Bid Tract
SI
N GE
$24.36 MM River 1
Bear Oil Shows
Lake
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo EXPLANATION
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows Well, Plugged and Abandoned
Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David
River 1, 1A
Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figu
re 6 Seismic Profile
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean * Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)

Sherwood\....\Fig34-Play3BlackHillsMap.cdr

Figure 34: Area of play 3, Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

124
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

G
Naknek
Lake

NIN 162° Lake

LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

AY
B
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
Basins 2 BR
Be 156°
BAS

cha
ro f
Great Lake Bear
Basins 1 Creek 1
PLAY 4: MILKY RIVER BIOGENIC
TIAN

Oil Shows
* Gas Shows
Becharof Lake 1 ke
s Alaska 1
La
Tested Gas shik Lee 1
GAS (Plio-Pleistocene)
LEU

a
90 Mcfd Ug
Oil Shows Finnegan 1
TH A

Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
NOR

IN
AS
NB
Wide Bay 1

TIA Triassic & Jurassic

North Aleutian EU Painter
AL
Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Shelf COST 1 Port Creek 1

gu

TH Heiden 1 (Puale Bay)

Oil Shows
re

R
NO
Gas Shows
ent
6

A
as e
m UL
ic B NS
Top Prospect
Koniag 1
collected $69.4 MM in
s ozo en t I
56° Sale 92 (73% of Sale)
ic M
e
ase
m N
mat ic B PE
Mag ozo KA
ST r y Mes S
St. George nta A
.G COST 2
Sed
ime AL
BA EOR Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92 Sandy
SIN GE Source Rocks?
High Bid Tract
$24.36 MM River 1
Bear Oil Shows
Lake
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo EXPLANATION
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows Well, Plugged and Abandoned
Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David
River 1, 1A
Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figur
e6
Seismic Profile
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean * Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)

Sherwood\....\Fig35-Play4BeringPlatform.cdr

Figure 35: Area of play 4, Milky River Biogenic Gas play, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

125
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

NING
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

Y
BA
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
Basins 2 BR
Be 156°
BAS

ch
aro
f

PLAY 5: MESOZOIC DEFORMED Great Lake

Basins 1
Bear
Creek 1
TIAN

Oil Shows

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Becharof Lake 1 akes Alaska 1

* Gas Shows
LEU

Tested Gas shik L Lee 1

a
90 Mcfd Ug

(Triassic-Cretaceous) Oil Shows Finnegan 1

TH A

Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
NOR

IN
AS
NB
Wide Bay 1

TIA Triassic & Jurassic

North Aleutian EU Painter
AL
Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Port Creek 1
Shelf COST 1
gu

TH Heiden 1 (Puale Bay)

Oil Shows
R
re

Gas Shows
NO ent LA
6

m
ase SU
Top Prospect
ic B IN
collected $69.4 MM in
ozo men
t Koniag 1
56°
Sale 92 (73% of Sale)
Mes ase EN
atic
M agm
es ozo
ic B
KAP
ST ry M
A S
nta
AL
St. George
.G ime
COST 2
Sed
BA EOR Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92 Sandy
SIN GE Source Rocks?
High Bid Tract
$24.36 MM River 1
Bear Oil Shows
Lake
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo EXPLANATION
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows Well, Plugged and Abandoned
Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David
River 1, 1A
Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figu
re 6 Seismic Profile
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean * Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)

Sherwood\....\Fig36-Play5MesoSedTerraneMap.cdr

Figure 36: Area of play 5, Mesozoic Deformed Sedimentary Rocks play, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

126
 ALASKA Iliamna Lake

Kuka L.

A
ARE
58° 164°

NING
Naknek
Lake

162° Lake
LAN
Brooks
LT

Bristol Bay
U
160° FA
CS P

Y
BA
158° UI
N
IN O

Great
BR
PLAY 6: MESOZOIC BURIED GRANITIC HILLS Basins 2
Be 156°
BAS

ch
aro
f
Great Lake Bear
(Jurassic-Cretaceous Magmatic Rocks) Basins 1 Creek 1
TIAN

Oil Shows
* Gas Shows
Becharof Lake 1 akes Alaska 1
LEU

Tested Gas shik L Lee 1

a
90 Mcfd Ug
Oil Shows Finnegan 1
TH A

Jurassic Oil
Source Rocks Grammar 1
Ugashik 1
NOR

IN
Area of AS
NB
Wide Bay 1
North Aleutian
Shelf COST 1 TIA Triassic & Jurassic
Basement Oil Shows
AL
EU Painter
Oil Source Rocks
Fi

Gas Shows Port Creek 1

gu

TH Heiden 1 (Puale Bay)

Highs R LA
re

NO nt
eme SU
6

ic Ba s IN
ST. GEORGE
Top Prospect
ozo N Koniag 1
Mes PE
collected $69.4 MM in
nt
56° eme
Sale 92 (73% of Sale)
ic
BASIN mat Bas KA
Mag zoic
s o AS
St. George
ntar
yM
e
AL
COST 2 ime
Jur-Cret Oil Sale 92 Sed Sandy
Source Rocks? High Bid Tract
$24.36 MM River 1
Bear Oil Shows
Lake
Monkshood 1 HILLS U
CK Hoodoo
BLA PL
Oil Show Bertha 1
Lake 1
Shallow I FT Big River 1
Gas Shows Cathedral
River 1 Hoodoo EXPLANATION
AMAK BA Oil Staining Lake 2
SIN Gas Shows Oil Shows Well, Plugged and Abandoned
Canoe
Bay 1 Gas Seep
Oil Seep. *Becharof Lake
seep (see below)

Uplift or Structural Arch

David
River 1, 1A
Leased Blocks (1988, Sale 92,
Oil Shows $95.4 MM, 23 Leases)
Tested Gas
(5-9 Mcfd)
Leased Blocks (2005, AK State,
$1.3 MM, 37 Leases)
Figu
re 6 Seismic Profile
0 50
MILES Pacific Ocean * Becharof Lake oil seep reported as “location unknown” by Magoon and Anders (1992,
Biologic markers in sediments and petroleum, tbl. 13.1)

Sherwood\....\Fig37-PlayMesoMagTerraneMap.cdr

Figure 37: Area of play 6, Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills play, North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area, Alaska.

127
 NET PAY IN COOK INLET OIL AND GAS POOLS
10
56 Oil and Gas Pools in 28 Fields
Minimum Reported = 15 ft
Maximum Reported = 550 ft (midpoint of 100-1000 ft,
Tyonek D Pool, Trading Bay Field)

Log-Normal Fit:
8 Mean = 151.39 ft
Standard Deviation = 179.72 ft
Mode=40.484 ft; mu=4.5802; sigma=0.9377
Number of Pools (Total = 56)

Statistical Range Lognormal Fit = 20-456 ft (F95-F05)

Mapped prospects in North Aleutian basin range
6 in amplitude from 46 to 584 feet, sufficient to
capture the full pay column (20-456 ft; mean=227
ft) modeled from Cook Inlet oil and gas fields.

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600
Net Feet Pay
Sherwood\.....\Fig38-PayHistogramCookInletFields.cdr

Figure 38: Histogram for pay thickness in Tertiary reservoirs in oil and gas fields of Cook Inlet. The log-normal fit
to these data was the basis for the pay thickness model for plays 1 and 3 in the North Aleutian basin. A modified
(reduced to reflect lower permeability) version of this distribution formed the pay thickness model for play 2. Data
from AOGCC (2001).

128
 Geothermal Models for Plays 1-3
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area
Normal (Gaussian) Probability Distributions 900
“Force-Fit” Between Estimates for Extremes
at Limits of Depth Range for Play

F00=834

800

RANKINE (OF + 460)

700
Y2
P LA F00=664

O
Y1
PLA
600
F00=581

F100=563
PLAY 3

F100=525
500
~100 99.9 99 95 75 50 25 05 1 0.1 ~0
PROBABILITY FOR EXCEEDANCE (FRACTILES)
Sherwood\....\Fig39-GeothermalModelsForPlays.cdr

Figure 39: Examples of “force-fit” probability distributions constructed between estimates for extreme values.
These geothermal models for North Aleutian plays 1, 2, and 3 are based on depth ranges of plays and a geothermal
gradient of 17ºF/1,000 ft at the North Aleutian Shelf COST 1 well (Turner et al., 1988, fig. 92, p. 182).

129
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 1 RESOURCE SUMMARY
A

BOE Resources (Risked)

F95 = 0 Mmboe
Mean = 1400 Mmboe
F05 = 3749 Mmboe

Sherwood\...\Fig40A-NAB-Play1-CumulativeGraphBOE.cdr

Largest Pool (Recoverable, Conditional)

F95 = 187 Mmboe (or 1.05 Tcfge)
F75 = 370 Mmboe (or 2.08 Tcfge)
Mean = 827 Mmboe (or 4.65 Tcfge)
F25 = 899 Mmboe (or 5.05 Tcfge)
F05 = 2,495 Mmboe (or 14.02 Tcfge)

Sherwood\....\Fig40C-NAB-Play1-RankedPoolPlot.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig40-NAB-Play1-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 40: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 1 (Bear Lake-Stepovak play).
(A), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (barrels of oil-equivalent); (B), pool
class size histogram, conditional recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes.

130
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 2 RESOURCE SUMMARY
A

BOE Resources (Risked)

F95 = 91 Mmboe
Mean = 568 Mmboe
F05 = 1,293 Mmboe

Sherwood\....\Fig41A-NAB-Play2-CumulativeGraphBOE.cdr

C
North Aleutian Basin Play 02 - Tolstoi
Pool Rank (Conditional Technically Recoverable): Re-Ranked on Means from PSRK Listing

1000
Largest Pool (Conditional, Recoverable)
Conditional RecoverableBOEResources

F95 = 61 Mmboe (or 0.34 Tcfge)

F75 = 122 Mmboe (or 0.69 Tcfge)
Mean = 208 Mmboe (or 1.17 Tcfge)
F25 = 258 Mmboe (or 1.45 Tcfge)
F05 = 467 Mmboe (or 2.62 Tcfge)
100
(Mmboe)

10

1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Pool Rank [n = 44] (25th to 75th Percentile, With Mean)
Sherwood\....\Fig41C-NAB-Play2-PoolRankPlot.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig41-NAB-Play2-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 41: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 2 (Tolstoi play). (A), cumulative
probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (barrels of oil-equivalent); (B), pool class size histogram,
conditional recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE volumes.

131
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 3 RESOURCE SUMMARY
A

BOE Resources (Risked)

F95 = 0 Mmboe
Mean = 210 Mmboe
F05 = 1077 Mmboe

Sherwood\....\Fig42A-NAB-Play3-CumulativeGraphBOE.cdr

Largest Pool (Conditional, Recoverable)

F95 = 20 Mmboe (or 0.11 Tcfge)
F75 = 83 Mmboe (or 0.47 Tcfge)
Mean = 378 Mmboe (or 2.12 Tcfge)
F25 = 444 Mmboe (or 2.50 Tcfge)
F05 = 1302 Mmboe (or 7.32 Tcfge)

Sherwood\...\Fig42C-NAB-Play3-PoolRankPlot.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig42-NAB-Play3-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 42: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 3 (Black Hills Uplift-Amak Basin
play). (A), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (barrels of oil-equivalent); (B),
pool class size histogram, conditional recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes.

132
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 4 RESOURCE SUMMARY

The Milky River Biogenic Gas play

(play 4) is assessed with negligible
recoverable gas resources.

Sherwood\....\Fig43-NAB-Play4-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 43: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 4 (Milky River Biogenic Gas
play).

133
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 5 RESOURCE SUMMARY
A

BOE Resources (Risked)

F95 = 0 Mmboe
Mean = 41 Mmboe
F05 = 197 Mmboe

Sherwood\....\Fig-44A-NAB-Play5-CumulativeGraph.cdr

C
Largest Pool (Conditional, Recoverable)
F95 = 8 Mmboe (or 0.04 Tcfge)
F75 = 24 Mmboe (or 0.13 Tcfge)
Mean = 63 Mmboe (or 0.35 Tcfge)
F25 = 80 Mmboe (or 0.45 Tcfge)
F05 = 176 Mmboe (or 0.99 Tcfge)

Sherwood\....\Fig44C-NAB-Play5-PoolRankPlot.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig44-NAB-Play5-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 44: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 5 (Mesozoic Deformed
Sedimentary Rocks play). (A), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (barrels of
oil-equivalent); (B), pool class size histogram, conditional recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool rank plot,
conditional recoverable BOE volumes.

134
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN PLAY 6 RESOURCE SUMMARY
A

BOE Resources (Risked)

F95 = 0 Mmboe
Mean = 67 Mmboe
F05 = 330 Mmboe

Sherwood\....\Fig45A-NAB-Play6-CumulativeGraphBOE.cdr

Sherwood\...\NAB-Play6-USGSClassPlot.cdr

C
Largest Pool (Conditional, Recoverable)
F95 = 9 Mmboe (or 0.05 Tcfge)
F75 = 33 Mmboe (or 0.19 Tcfge)
Mean = 148 Mmboe (or 0.83 Tcfge)
F25 = 154 Mmboe (or 0.87 Tcfge)
F05 = 469 Mmboe (or 2.64 Tcfge)

Sherwood\....\Fig45C-NAB-Play6-PoolRankPlot.cdr

Sherwood\....\Fig45-NAB-Play6-GraphicCompilation.cdr

Figure 45: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area play 6 (Mesozoic Buried Granitic Hills
play). (A), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (barrels of oil-equivalent); (B),
pool class size histogram, conditional recoverable BOE volumes; (C), pool rank plot, conditional recoverable BOE
volumes.

135
 NORTH ALEUTIAN BASIN RESOURCE SUMMARY

Gas (Free
and Sol’n)

Oil &
Condensate

Sherwood\...\Fig46-NAB-CumGraphResourceCompilation.cdr

Figure 46: Assessment results for North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area. (A), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable BOE resources (oil
and gas in barrels of oil-equivalent); (B), cumulative probability plot for total risked recoverable liquid (oil + condensate from gas) resources; (C), cumulative
probability plot for total risked recoverable gas (free gas and solution gas) resources; (D), comparative cumulative probability plot for oil & condensate, BOE,
and gas (free gas and solution gas).

136
 Rank Plot, North Aleutian Basin Hypothetical Gas Pools (Conditional Bcf),
and Cook Inlet Gas Fields (Bcf EUR)
Largest NAB Pool: 4645 Bcfg (Mean)

Largest CI Field (Kenai): 2427 Bcfg North Aleutian Basin Pools (93)
Gas-Prone Plays 1, 2, & 6
BOE Pools Presented As 100% Gas

F25 (Bcfg)

Mean

F75 (Bcfg
)
Cook Inlet Gas Fields (16)

Cook Inlet field reserve data from AK Division of Oil

Sherwood\....\Fig47-Rank Plot-NAB Gas Pools Plays 1, 2, & 6 and CI Gas Fields.cdr & Gas (2005), 2004 Annual Report, tbls. 3.2, IV.6

Figure 47: Hypothetical gas pools in gas-prone plays (1, 2, and 6) of North Aleutian basin are comparable in size to the gas fields of Cook Inlet basin. The
largest hypothetical pool in North Aleutian basin could be almost twice the size of the Kenai gas field in Cook Inlet. Total Cook Inlet EUR = 11.6 Tcf gas. The
North Aleutian Basin OCS Planning Area is estimated to contain 8.6 Tcf gas (mean, risked, technically-recoverable).

137
 Bering Sea 0 50
ALASKA Iliamna Lake

MILES
Kuka L.

REA
GA
NNIN
Naknek
58° 164°

PLA
King Naknek
Lake
Salmon

CS
162° Lake
Brooks
INO
160°
BAS

158°
TIAN

Be
ch
156°
aro

Bristol Bay
fL
LEU

ake
THA

s
ke
La
hik
NOR

as
Ug

i)
k
is
Offshore Port

ik
Heiden

(N
le s
Hub it

In er
Gathering ile
Lim

t
k k
-M

o n
Pipelines r ee

o a
Th

C T
56°

to NG
L
Tr
P

un
ip

Chignik
el

1988 Federal k Port

i.
in

M
Moller Bear
e

Lake
Offshore Leases (23)

0
5
(Relinquished)

5
Balboa
2005 Alaska
Bay State Leases (37)
Cold
Bay
False Sand
Pass Point
2,6 L
00
Mi. NG Ta
Balboa Bay to U nke
LNG Plant/Port .S. rs
We
st C
Pacific Ocean oas
t
Sherwood\....\Fig48-North Aleutian-Development Model.cdr

Figure 48: Hypothetical development model for North Aleutian basin gas resources. Platforms and subsea completions at offshore gas fields direct the gas into
gathering pipelines that carry the gas to an offshore hub. A 75-mile pipeline (25 miles subsea, 50 miles overland) then carries the gas to a hypothetical liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plant at Balboa Bay (site in southwest arm identified in 1980 study by Dames & Moore). At the LNG plant the gas is refrigerated to a liquid
state (-260ºF) preparatory to shipping via LNG tankers to hypothetical receiving and re-gasification facilities in Cook Inlet or along the U.S. (or Canada or
Mexico) West Coast.

138